8 unique features separating Jesus from other philosophies

[Quid est Veritas?]

And Jesus was born of Mary and David. So, not a virgin birth. Or at least some of the stories (including the "mainstream" Christian Gospel) say that.

I'm at work and I am super busy for the foreseeable future. Holiday session is here, it is crazy! I don't even have a day off until about two weeks from now and I'm working 10+ hours a day. But I really want to participate in this discussion. So I'm book marking and I plan on being back here. I have a few verses to share that I think will be enlightening.

OP, I'm happy for you to try and convert me. I already was a Christian though and I have looked a great deal into it. But I'm open. Obviously I don't know everything.

I'd actually love for there to be deities, magic, a happy afterlife for everyone, crypto animals, and all that. I just don't have good reasons to accept any of that as true. At least not yet.

Having myths that actively entail conception via the male vs. a tradition that actively calls it a parthenogenic birth with other tales merely calling Joseph his father, are hardly comparable. If the other gospels told of how Joseph lay with Mary that would be different.

Anyway, Celsus said Jesus was born of an illicit affair between Mary and a Roman soldier Pantera. No one takes that seriously, since it is clear that Christian tradition ascribed a virgin birth to Jesus since its earliest days, and Celsus is a hostile source.
Just saying Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary, because later Joseph is called his father, isn't convincing in a 1st century context. For yes, Joseph was His father. From the Jewish side we had ideas like levirate marriage and so forth, and to Romans, adoption was a serious business. An adopted child was fully considered the couple's child, none of this 'birth parents' thing we do nowadays. This is why Octavian could fully trust Caesar's legacy was his; why the Five Good Emperors so seamlessly inherited; why Scipio Aemilianus Numantinus was fully expected to not only continue on the legacy of the Cornelii, but to share traits such as military ability with them. This is also why Adoptionism was considered such a serious heresy.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You're welcome. No problem, NV.

And as to Paul, maybe see what I wrote in response to Silmarien above. (post #57)



I'm going to go out on a limb here and point out that there is also no previous source for Luke's claims regarding Elizabeth's pregnancy, which comes just prior to Mary's pregnancy and is yet another example of a fulfillment of the Old Testament "special birth" pattern.

So, I'm thinking, we may not want to assume that Luke got his "Virgin Birth" information from Matthew. It might just be that Luke extrapolated his version from an entirely different corpus of data than from what the other Gospel writers did; Matthew and Mark didn't write anything about Elizabeth, and Luke's account of Mary is just too different from Matthew's to assume he simply took it from him. But, who knows? We can all surmise what we think is the most likely process.

Matthew and Luke's birth narratives differ radically. One places it in a clear Herodian context, the other alludes to the Census of Quirinius. One has Shepherds, the other the Magi. It is fairly clear that if one borrowed something from the other, they ignored almost all the other information. This makes it fairly obvious that we are dealing with two separate birth traditions, which therefore both have Virgin Births.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

I was unaware that Luke and Paul attest to a virgin birth. Do you have the passages?

Luke 1:34
How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

1 Corinthians 9:16
For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel.

Gospel - the record of Christ's life and teaching in the first four books of the New Testament.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well, I can't tell you of an example of something like that happening, because I don't think it's possible.

But the myths predate christianity. Examples would be several greek gods like Hephaestus, Krishna, Horus, Marjatta, the list goes on.

Really, if one wanted to make a mythical figure special, strange circumstances around the birth and pregnancy were very common.

I think the problem is in confusing a spectacular/supernatural birth with a virgin birth. For example, Horus wasn't born of a virgin, Horus was born of Isis after she reassembled the body parts of Osiris and the rest of the gods brought him back to life, with the use of a magical phallus Osiris and Isis copulated, she became pregnant with Horus, while Osiris was reborn as lord of the underworld.

Krishna was the eighth child born to Devaki and her husband Vasudeva.

Now with Hephaestus, this one has merit, as Hesiod recounts that Hephaesus was born of Hera alone, as revenge for Zeus having bore Athena alone; Hesiod's account differs from Homer's in which Hephaesus was the child of Zeus and Hera.

Not all supernatural/spectacular births are virgin births. Though many are claimed to be--for example that of Gautama Buddha, Mithras, Attis, as well as the above mentioned Krishna and Horus. Though in the examples I gave no virgin birth transpired. Siddartha was born of his two parents by sexual union, Mithras emerged fully formed from solid rock, while Attis was the result of the water nymph Nana consuming an almond from the almond tree which sprouted from the male member of Agdistis. One, I suppose, could get away with calling Attis' birth virginal--but given that the almond came from a male member, it seems shaky to me.

Ultimately the idea that virgin births were common doesn't particularly hold water. One can find the occasional virgin birth if one looks hard enough, but the idea that virgin births were a dime a dozen in the stories of the ancient world isn't an accurate one. it is more accurate to point out that spectacular births were common, and that yes the virgin birth of Jesus is an example of a spectacular birth.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tom 1]

I wouldn't call all of these unique. Virgin pregnancies, for example, are part of many myths, often predating christianity by centuries.

Could you quote some? Particularly any from Sumerian/Akkadian myths or same time period if you know any, thanks

 

[Nithavela]

Could you quote some? Particularly any from Sumerian/Akkadian myths or same time period if you know any, thanks

We already went over this in the thread. Why don't you do a google search, there are dozens of websites debating this back and forth.

 

[Tom 1]

We already went over this in the thread. Why don't you do a google search, there are dozens of websites debating this back and forth.

Was just asking if you know of any from that time period. Sometimes specialist info is trickier to find using google searches. Don’t worry about it

 

[Silmarien]

The word "alma" was mistranslated by the anonymous author of Matthew as virgin, and set into play an entire doctrine that is untenable.

This is actually not true. The Hebrew Almah was translated as παρθένος in the Septuagint, so the entire Greek speaking world was using this particular translation of the Old Testament, not just the author of Matthew (or its Greek translators, if it was originally written in Hebrew). Translating Almah as "young woman" is not quite accurate either, since Almah has additional connotations of an unmarried young woman, and what were unmarried women expected to be until relatively recently? I would say that "maiden" is the best translation in English of the word, but the difference between "maiden" and "virgin" is mostly just contextual.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I worry that this involves reading more back into Paul's phrasing than is actually intended. It reminds me of the wording of Job 14:1. "A mortal, born of woman, few of days and full of trouble."

So all I really read there is that Paul is affirming that he was born human and not some sort of disembodied angel, Richard Carrier style.

Actually, in re-reading what you've said here, I think you make a good point about Jesus being human and not a "disembodied angel," Silmarien. And it is something I'd add to what I've said above.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is actually not true. The Hebrew Almah was translated as παρθένος in the Septuagint, so the entire Greek speaking world was using this particular translation of the Old Testament, not just the author of Matthew (or its Greek translators, if it was originally written in Hebrew). Translating Almah as "young woman" is not quite accurate either, since Almah has additional connotations of an unmarried young woman, and what were unmarried women expected to be until relatively recently? I would say that "maiden" is the best translation in English of the word, but the difference between "maiden" and "virgin" is mostly just contextual.

...and then we have to find a way to interpret Paul's little quip at the beginning of his letter to the Romans and fit that in with everything else that we've both said here so far.

Any ideas about how we should handle the following bits?:

1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. (Romans 1:1-4)​

This doesn't quite sound like a 'virgin birth' to me.

 

[Silmarien]

...and then we have to find a way to interpret Paul's little quip at the beginning of his letter to the Romans and fit that in with everything else that we've both said here so far.

Any ideas about how we should handle the following bits?:

1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. (Romans 1:1-4)​

This doesn't quite sound like a 'virgin birth' to me.

I don't know. I haven't gotten around to a full enough study of Paul's theology to really have an opinion yet. Though that honestly looks like fullblown Adoptionism to me, unless Paul means to imply that it was only at the Resurrection when everything was finally revealed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know. I haven't gotten around to a full enough study of Paul's theology to really have an opinion yet. Though that honestly looks like fullblown Adoptionism to me, unless Paul means to imply that it was only at the Resurrection when everything was finally revealed.

That's alright. I don't have an answer for this at the moment either. But if it is some kind of adoptionism, then it seems it would count against the other argument that Luke was just one of Paul's lackeys.

 

[Liza B.]

1. at least 25 fulfilled, Old Testament predictions of this Messiah's coming. To accurately predict this requires total control over the future events and the power to make them happen; ergo knowledge and power. (Isaiah 7.14;9.6; Micah 5.2)
2. supernatural conception (aka Virgin Birth) of Jesus (Luke 1.26-38). This is predicted in advance. God's Holy Spirit power brings it to pass.
3. Jesus lived a sinless life. (2 Cor 5.21; 1 Ptr 1.18-19)
4. Jesus the Savior died for His followers--fully paid for their sins.
5. Jesus forgives sin, removes the guilt. (Jn 8.32; Matt 11.28-30; Jn 10.10).
6. Promises eternal life as a FREE gift (Rom 6.23; Jn 6.37;10.28; 1 Jn 2.25;Tit 3.5)
7. Resurrected bodily from the grave
8. Co-creator of nature - Jn 1.1-3; Col 1.16-17; Heb 1.2,10)

As a Christian--and FWIW--I find the fact that Jesus died for His followers and offers eternal life as a free gift to be especially compelling and unique to Christianity.

 

[Dave RP]

1. at least 25 fulfilled, Old Testament predictions of this Messiah's coming. To accurately predict this requires total control over the future events and the power to make them happen; ergo knowledge and power. (Isaiah 7.14;9.6; Micah 5.2)
2. supernatural conception (aka Virgin Birth) of Jesus (Luke 1.26-38). This is predicted in advance. God's Holy Spirit power brings it to pass.
3. Jesus lived a sinless life. (2 Cor 5.21; 1 Ptr 1.18-19)
4. Jesus the Savior died for His followers--fully paid for their sins.
5. Jesus forgives sin, removes the guilt. (Jn 8.32; Matt 11.28-30; Jn 10.10).
6. Promises eternal life as a FREE gift (Rom 6.23; Jn 6.37;10.28; 1 Jn 2.25;Tit 3.5)
7. Resurrected bodily from the grave
8. Co-creator of nature - Jn 1.1-3; Col 1.16-17; Heb 1.2,10)

I don't profess to be an expert but I would say the following:

1. Many of the Old Testament predictions apparently fulfilled were written by followers with a biased viewpoint, potentially manipulating (or making up stories) to fulfil the predictions. For example the messiah coming from "Davids line" and then using Joseph (not Jesus father if you believe he was from the holy spirit) as justification, or having them go to Bethlehem so he was born in Davids town when there is no evidence of a census at the time of Jesus birth, or that Joseph would have travelled hundreds of miles with his heavily pregnant wife.

2. There is no evidence of a virgin birth, there absolutely could never be, you can only believe in this by faith.

3. As I understand it those who say Jesus was sinless were his followers, writing after the event, of course they would say that but as there is no record of most of Jesus life, you again can only believe this by faith.

4. He might ave died for his followers, but again it is only faith that links it to "fully paid for their sins"

5. Ditto

6. Many religions promise eternal life.

7. The evidence for resurrection is sketchy to say the least, it appears something might have happened at his tomb, but the resurrection story gets more embellished the later the gospels were written after the event.

8. If you believe in God, it created everything, how then can Jesus, who didn't get born for billions of years after creation, be the co creator.

Having faith is fair enough, but faith is not proof of anything except of course of your faith.

 

[ViaCrucis]

8. If you believe in God, it created everything, how then can Jesus, who didn't get born for billions of years after creation, be the co creator.

My response here isn't intended to try and prove the truth of Christianity, but really just to offer the historic Christian teaching on this subject for the sake of being informative.

Orthodox Christian teaching is that Jesus is fully God and fully human in what we refer to as the Hypostatic Union. This could reasonably be translated as "Personal Union", as the Greek word hypostasis is often translated as "person". Chalcedonian Christians (Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants) all embrace what is known as the Definition of Chalcedon, a formal statement on Christian theology put forward at the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451 in response to several Christological controversies of the period, which reads:

"We then, following the holy fathers, come together in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. The same completely divine and completely human, truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; of the same substance with the Father as regards His Deity, and the same substance with us as regards His humanity; like us in all respects except for sin. Eternally begotten of the Father as regards His Deity, and in the last days, for us and our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, God-bearer as regards His humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. At no point are the distinctions between the natures removed by the union, but rather the uniqueness of both natures is preserved and is united in one person and subsistance. He is not divided or parted into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us."

We believe that the Divine Logos, who is Himself truly and very God, the only-begotten Son of the Father, became flesh: God became man. Jesus Christ is the creator of all things because He is the Divine Logos or Word, who is both with God and is God from all eternity.

We believe all three Hypostases (Persons) of the Trinity, being God, are the Creator. The Nicene Creed offers three expressions relating to each of the Three:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen."
"And in one Lord Jesus Christ ... through Him all things were made."
"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dave RP]

My response here isn't intended to try and prove the truth of Christianity, but really just to offer the historic Christian teaching on this subject for the sake of being informative.

Orthodox Christian teaching is that Jesus is fully God and fully human in what we refer to as the Hypostatic Union. This could reasonably be translated as "Personal Union", as the Greek word hypostasis is often translated as "person". Chalcedonian Christians (Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants) all embrace what is known as the Definition of Chalcedon, a formal statement on Christian theology put forward at the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451 in response to several Christological controversies of the period, which reads:

"We then, following the holy fathers, come together in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. The same completely divine and completely human, truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; of the same substance with the Father as regards His Deity, and the same substance with us as regards His humanity; like us in all respects except for sin. Eternally begotten of the Father as regards His Deity, and in the last days, for us and our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, God-bearer as regards His humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. At no point are the distinctions between the natures removed by the union, but rather the uniqueness of both natures is preserved and is united in one person and subsistance. He is not divided or parted into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us."

We believe that the Divine Logos, who is Himself truly and very God, the only-begotten Son of the Father, became flesh: God became man. Jesus Christ is the creator of all things because He is the Divine Logos or Word, who is both with God and is God from all eternity.

We believe all three Hypostases (Persons) of the Trinity, being God, are the Creator. The Nicene Creed offers three expressions relating to each of the Three:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen."
"And in one Lord Jesus Christ ... through Him all things were made."
"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life"

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed that is what you believe, and all Christians believe in something very similar. Good luck to you all. X

 

[DogmaHunter]

If it was shown to be true, really true(!) that Jesus( and His Father Creator) did exist would you follow Him?

I would certainly accept they exist in that case.
Wheter I would follow them or not, would depend on other factors.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why are you even interested in saying anything on a Christian forum?

Read the posts. "for the company".
And why would any of us have to explain ourselves to you in terms of why we like posting here?

BTW virgin 'myths' may be plenty, but an actual virgin 'birth' is unique.

Not to mention unsupported.

Look into it, you might be surprised and pleased with our Savior.

I looked and was left unimpressed. Now what?

 

[Nithavela]

I looked and was left unimpressed. Now what?

Look again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Deleted: double post