I am an atheist. I believe in the book of Acts, Paul was referring to the worship of the "Unknown God" when he mentioned there ignorance. I don't believe he was referring to there worship of all of the other "pagan" gods. He believed that by acknowledging the "Unknown God", they were worshiping the "on true God", but only in there ignorance.
WHY IS THIS SO SCHOCKING??? DID'NT PAUL HIMSELF SAY " I SAY WHATEVER I HAVE TO,DEPENDING ON WHO HE IS TALKING WITH AT THE TIME?? HE HIMSELF SAID HE WOULD LIE IN ORDER TO CONVERT PEOPLE... HEY, WHAT THE HELL, IT'S PAUL...
@siannarino Paul would lie in order to convert people!. How shocking – Religious people will do anything to perpetuate their superstitious nonsense. We would all be better off without them. These frauds claim to occupy the moral high ground. Yet they behave appallingly
@finderfinder100 Me too! Reading his letters in the New Testament...I always got an odd vibe... just a feeling in my heart that something wasn't right. Comes off as very arrogant, awfully full of himself. Sure loves to talk about himself, and glorify himself...
Without a doubt... a liar. Deceiver. False prophet. False apostle.
Evil vs Suffering this is the crux. It's the difference between the Abrahamic worldview which generates monotheistc Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Easteern worldview which generates pantheistic and non-theistc Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism. The former is moralisic believing that morality can be enforced by rules; the latter being essentially existential, side-stepping moral philosophy, offering techniques to elimate suffering.
I know this may not have anything to do with the point being made in this video, but "idol worship" is probably one of the oldest strawmen of Judeo-Christianity against polytheistic religions. The "infallibility and inerrancy" of scripture, holy relics, the Ark of the Covenant etc, are just degrees of object veneration.
@hawklord2001 Thank you very much. To the extent that I'm any more aritculate than you, it's most likely just because I've had more practice and been around longer. ;-)
I'm sorry, is homosexuality a religion or something? I wasn't aware that bigotry was disapproval of abhorrent behavior..
Oh, how definitions change in our psychotic liberal world. Little to you know your entire youtube life is nothing but attacking a religion that doesn't approve your behavior. In reality, you are the bigot. I'm just point out the fact that homosexuality, though you're free to do so, is still ridiculously disgusting and has no benefit in our world.
@ProfMTH Explain it to me. You're telling me that if think homosexuality to be a perverse behavior which has no benefit, then i'm a bigot? You realize that nature itself if bigoted? Baseless? Homosexuality is baseless. What is the basis for homosexual behavior?
And don't give me this crap about animals being homosexual. Then killing and rape could also be justified since they are natural behavior?
That's right, you psychotic liberals actually think your feelings determine reality.
@knowwaie "You're telling me that if think homosexuality to be a perverse behavior which has no benefit, then i'm a bigot?"
No, that's merely wrong. The bigot part was in response to your statement about never trusting a homosexual.
" Homosexuality is baseless."
Haven't a clue what that means. More importantly, I suspect you don't either. But you have wasted enough of my time with your gibberish. I hope the nurse gets to you soon with your early evening meds. Have a great life! :-)
You're telling me that if think homosexuality to be a perverse behavior which has no benefit, then i'm a bigot?
Yes, a huge fucking bigot whom I'd happily smack ten shades of shit out, and who's no better then a KKK member. Bigots are fucking bigots and the only good one is a dead one.
And if any liberals are psychotic towards you, it's because you're a raging douche and an obnoxious piece of shite. You DESERVE people being psychotic towards you, because you're a fucking hater.
@knowwaie "homosexuality...is still ridiculously disgusting and has no benefit in our world."
That's your opinion. You live in a different world than the rest of freethinking society. What does homosexuality have to do with this video, anyway? Did seeing a guy without his shirt on get you horny? You're the definition of a troll.
"Then killing and rape could also be justified since they are natural behavior?"
The bible justifies them. It also justifies torture and child murder.
@knowwaie What is the basis for STRAIGHT behavior. Um, because you're attracted to the opposite sex. Not everyone is the same. Not everyone is attracted to the same sex. BIGOT.
@ProfMTH I, for one, find homosexuals to be very trustworthy... it's the religious hypocrites you have to watch out for... like Ted Haggard.. or, you know, Saul of Tarsus...
I don't feel that argument from the book "Jesus, Interrupted" was very convincing.
Even when I was a christian, my view of a doctrine or perspective of the unsaved could change dramatically within the space of a year. You could easily say the same about Paul.
This is not enough. To know, that the speaking paul is different from the real one, does not discredit the book itself, it just reveals, that the speeches of the apostles have been construed out of fantasy. But that doesn't discredit the council of jerusalem or the mere possibility of paul's evangelizing travelings. I should read the book for myself.
What struck me about Paul was how Acts has him performing miracles, including raising the dead, though Paul himself says nothing about it. And it's clear from his actual writings that he was not a humble man; something like that wouldn't have slipped his mind.
It's inconceivable that the Jesus myth was immune to this kind of elaboration, when Paul's own testimony wasn't considered fabulous enough to stand on its own.
@MrZardoz777 "And it's clear from his actual writings that he was not a humble man"...my thoughts exactly. I read his epistles in the New Testament, and more than anything else, it left me thinking, "Wow...awfully arrogant..."
There are some commentators who regard the sermon on Mars Hill as one of Paul's errors and failures. He did not succeed in founding a church in Athens. He may well have learned that his tactics there were wrong, hence the very different position taken in Romans.
@NevilleRhysBarnes That would be a remarkable change in Paul's worldview. It seems to me more likely that the Areopagus speech is the work of the author of Acts rather than Paul.
Couldn't it also be that Paul himself was inconsistent?
After all, it's hardly unknown for people to say one thing to an internal audience and something else entirely to get them to join in the first place.
This wouldn't be much better for Christianity, of course, since not only does it make Paul look bad, it also leaves open the contradiction as to which is supposed to be true. In much the same way, couldn't Peter have just been lying about how Judas died?
you started in the wrong place.... romans 1:18 for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
those that "are without excuse" are those "who hold the truth in unrighteousness"...or people who knew- not the ignorant
If you want to understand your Creator and His Word, (The Bible), learn Ancient Hebrew/Aramaic, and read it in the original language, in the light of the culture of the people it was written to. Translations and worse, books based on translations, are flawed to say the least This goes for thw New Testament also, although the book of Matthew is the only original that has been found so far.
@ProfMTH Paul gives us so much to work with doesn't he? Isn't it ironic that he and Jerusalem church had such a battle but Paul won the political battle as he spread his gospel with the largely pagan Gentiles which outnumbered the Jews. Funny how we call something christianity when by all rights it should be called paulianity.
@creepyoldman2 The reference I gave was to a professor of theology who actually knows a lot about the bible that is true and agreed upon by most Christian scholars. It is not a 7th hand interpretation as you put it, it is the CLOSEST interpretation.
@takewhole ahhh, a theologist. someone who reads the bible everyday. Now, closest interpretation? how can one say its the closest interpretation? can one know the intention of the authors? and no matter what, we are all many many interpretations from the original.
Ok Prof, question for ya. Do these passages indicate Paul was a monotheist (assuming the Christian god is one god) or monolatrism? Did they believe in Zeus and were punished for worshipping him or was zeus and the others merely fabrications? I get the impression they believed in multiple gods, but could only worship the Judeo-Christian father/son mishmash whatever...
@MercuryRis I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests Paul was anything other than a monotheist. There are lots of declarations of monotheism in his writings as well as rejections of the idea the idea that gods other than the Christian god are real.
What I like about him is he went to seminary and thats when he figured it out, the author, not Paul. BTW I hope YT fixes this buffering problem soon, its really annoying!
Is this the book, I think it is--where Bart Ehrman makes the assertion that Paul did not write a letter because someone else scribed his dictation. If that is the case there are 1000s of business and government letters sent and read in businesses and governmental agencies which are fraud, fake, total fabrications.
We just can't trust anybody anymore, especially if they dictate their thoughts to someone else? That means they did not write it and therefore would not vouch for what the scribe/typist wrote down. Man, we've got trouble in river city!!
@ProfMTH You've just make one of the errors that Ehrman and other scholars make!! Please put my two comments together and see if you don't get a totally different interpretation of my second comment.
Hint: They are one paragraph and nothing there is about you.
Hey you are good at video. What would you say to me if I told you that I have written at least three very different accounts of my own conversion. People are creative--they can do that. Why would you not give Luke and Paul that liberty?
Hi Mitch. I have critiqued this video in great depth on my blog, "A Biblical Defense of Catholicism" (post dated 7-5-10), providing many arguments from logic and the biblical texts themselves. Your counter-reply would be most welcomed, and I would be delighted to continue the dialogue after you have become familiar with what I contend are the true (and rather obvious) biblical positions on these matters. I have done five critiques of your videos in five days and hope to do many more. Take care.
Have you heard of the Old perspective (old tradition) vs. the New perspective of Paul( re-intrepret of the letters of Paul based on historical anicent culture)?
In Acts 17:22-31, Paul was speaking to unbelievers that he was trying to convert, so he tries to persuade them in a rather sympathetic tone.
But in Romans 1:18-32, Paul is speaking to believers about unbelievers. Now his goal to keep the sheep in the flock by demonizing unbelievers and their unbelief in the harshest terms possible, a tactic which is designed to keep believers in line by engendering fear of unbelievers and their world of unbelief. Divide and conquer.
Dr. George Lamsa translated the verse in question as: "For the times of ignorance God has made to pass, and at this time He has commanded all men, everywhere, to repent." (Acts 17:30 Lamsa). I also want to mention is that the Aramaic word ta-yu-tha most obviously means: an erring, straying, error, deception misleading" rather than "ignorance."
This is what we call a perfect marketing and PR strategy with a certain political goal, to gain more voters and to retain those that are already on your side.
In the first case you appeal to the fact that he can also be part of this amazing party. In the second case you appeal to the uniqueness of belonging to this amazing party.
Well there is one think I have to recognise, he was one smart manipulator.
In The Jesus Mysteries, Peter Gandy and Timothy Freke argue that Paul was actually a gnostic, and the writings that ascribed to him, in which he criticised the gnostics were not in fact written by him.
I think he is the father of Gnosticism. Paul is a liar just like Peter. I wonder why Christians don't see their faith is also a lie. I can't find this passage '... to them I became a Jew, and to the gentiles I became one...' or somethin like it. Paul had to lie so that people will convert. And he didn't expect this will be used to kill millions of Jews in the future. So the whole Christian agenda is to lie just to convert people, what a bunch of plastic people.
Paul was guilty of "felony murder" in the death of Stephen. He was a co-conspirator in a felony resulting in a death.
He was an unrepentant sinner when he had his Damascus road experience,[Acts 9:1-3] . He was an unbaptised person.[Acts 9:18] at Damascus road. I wonder why Jesus would choose such a man to preach his message.
Paul did not have the required 2 or 3 witnessses. The men with Paul did not see anyone [acts 9:7] The men did not hear the voice [Acts 22:9]
AND, Ebal, the portrayal of his conversion in Acts is decidedly different from Paul's own description of his conversion, which appears in Galatians 1. It describes a private, internal revelation, while Acts portrays the opposite, i.e., a flashy, very not private revelation.
Good point! People who have been out in the sun too long often display symptoms similar to Paul's experience on Damascus road. Physical collapse, blindness, and hallucination.
Not to sound like an apologist, but the Acts passage purports to be a transcription of a sermon literally spoken to the Greeks, yes?
Well, might it just be that it's impolitic to tell someone to their face that they've consciously strayed down the path of darkness and that God has given them over to a vile and depraved mind?
Which is a plausible explanation, RayBobb. It's just that Paul goes on and on in his own writings about how he tells people these sorts of things directly because he's not interested in avoiding persecution.
What's always been strange to me is that the epistles are considered by many, if I'm not mistaken, to be the oldest and most authentic form of Christianity, yet time and time again it seems to completely contradict and replace with new doctrine what the gospels or acts appear to teach.
Well, the epistles aren't "the oldest and most authentic form of Christianity," but many of them are among the oldest Christian documents that we have. And, yes, they often do differ from the gospels and other texts that came after them. The Christian "story" changed over time. One can see some of the changes happening across the four canonical gospels as well as in the differences between the gospels and the epistles.
Osbourne you really lost me when you started saying I'm anti-semtiic and worse that I am a holocaust denier. My parents are ashkenazi jews, and my greatgrandparents are holocaust suvivors. So enough said. Before I thought you were stubborn, but now its occurs to me you are just senile. GOODBYE!
I apologize for my assumptions. Your post on my page immediately followed that of a holocaust denier, and you made some of the same arguments he did. I will withdraw the offending remarks and delete the post. Again, I apologize.
The early text do not support the idea of a virgin birth. And, as I noted, there were competing claims to a virgin birth. And yes, there did exist myths that Sargon was born of a virgin. You are arguing from religion, not from a point of historical or scientific accuracy.
My argument is people do not purposely invent theological problems. When you are making up a religion you won't make up things that cause problems for your central tenets. And the messiahship of Jesus is the central tenet of Christianity. Since everything on moshiach is lineage based the Gospel writers have no reason to invent a doctrine that hampers Jesus being the messiah. They would only leave it in the story if it was something just undeniable at the time, similar to his birth in Galilee.
You touch upon something important here, because Paul's statements in the epistle about pagans having no excuse is a key answer to the "why would God punish pagans who haven't heard of Jesus" question that Christian apologetics are often asked. The book "Reasons to Believe" bases its answer almost entirely off of Paul's statements, which led to a Catholic distinction between "vincible ignorance" and "invincible ignorance." (BTW, "invincible ignorance" is an interesting-sounding phrase.)
In Judaism title goes by who your phyisical father is. Since Jesus does not have a father, he can never inherit the title of moschiach ben David; the messiah. Why would christians do this? Why would they essentially make it impossible for Jesus to be the messiah by saying he was virgin born? By doing this they have essentially created an unsolvable conundrum. Why make a problem for the most important theology of Christianity?
Judaism is decided by the mother not the father. And a virgin birth was largely expected of many ancients for any god-made-man. Note that the virgin birth legend did not seem to happen until Christianity spread beyond the Jewish community.
you are incorrect. in fact the whole mother deciding who a Jew is a later developement (nothing in the OT talks about this). However tribal title in Judaism goes by father. If your dad is a levite, you are a levite. To be a messiah you must have a pure, uncorrupted lineage from David/ Solomon. That lineage is patrilineal. Read Genesis and Chronicles, all lineages are determined patrilineally not matrilineally
Judaism is not based sole on the Jewish Bible.Furthermore, I don't understand your claim. Are you arguing that Jesus was not Jewish because his mother was Jewish and his father was God? What are you trying to say?
I am arguing that the earliest christians very much had the belief of a virgin birth of Jesus. Because they would not make up theology that takes Jesus out of messianic office.
We will have to agree to disagree. The evidence indicates that Mark and Paul did not know of the virgin birth. Furthermore, science indicates that a virgin birth is impossible. Also, the similarities between the alleged births of Sargon, Moses, and Jesus are a matter of historical record.
Science is relative and Paul not speaking on virgin birth is what in fallacies is known as arguing a negative. Just because Paul does not mention it does not mean he did not know about it. But importantly we don't have all of Paul's letters, and most were written in his name, so you cannot rule out the argument that he did know about them
Yet the one time Paul mentions the birth of Jesus -- in his letter to the Galatians -- he says Jesus was "born of a woman," not a virgin. It's not as if Paul didn't know the Greek word for virgin. He uses it several times in his letters, but not in reference to the mother of Jesus.
We don't have all Paul's letters. We have some we know to be by Paul, some we know are not by Paul, and some that may or may not be by Paul. But I don't know what you mean by "science is relative." But the science I believe states that a virgin did not give birth to Jesus in 1 CE. If you believe this for religious reasons, I understand. But I do not accept this as scientific.
I'm not going to have an argument with you on miracles. That's off topic. Regardless I am glad you concede that we do have from Paul is a fraction of his works. So negative evidence is not evidence. There were other gospels and other epistles....But this is irrelevant to the simple fact that neither of you have replied to the original questions. Why would christians make this up? Why would they add something that takes messiahship away from Jesus, unless it was undeniable doctrine of the era?
It very simple. First, I agree with you that the writer of Luke/Acts did not know Paul. I've already said that. Furthermore, as I said, Father Raymond Brown, in his The Birth of the Messiah, has amply demonstrated that such legends were not uncommon at the time in the Greco-Roman world. As a history student in college, I read virgin birth stories about Sargon the Great going back almost 2000 before Jesus. Virgin birth was expected of larger-than-life characters. (continued)
The virgin birth legend creates no problem for the Christ claim of Christians. Mary is supposed to relate back to David. Christians see no problem with this now, and they did not when Matthew and Luke was wrote.
Osborne I'm going to repeat this one final time. You cannot be messiah because biblically patrilineal lineage is what determines title. So Mary being connected to David is irrelevant. Your father whose father whose father whose father etc etc has to be David. A PATRILINEAL lineage to David. Since Jesus is without father he cannot have a connection to David patrlineally so he cannot be messiah. So virgin birth=Jesus not messiah. Get it yet?
If you are arguing that Mary was a virgin, you are wasting time in responding to me. Mary was not a virgin, and the old texts in the New Testament do not refer to her as a virgin. The oldest are the letters of Paul, and he does not know of the virgin birth myth. Mark in next in age. Mark does not know of the virgin birth. The early Christians after Paul and Mark invented the virgin birth myth. The virgin myth does not take away from the Christians' messiah claim. (continued)
Osborne now you are just arguing in circles. I explained to you Sargon was not virgin born as his primary sources show, yet you continue repeating just that. I showed you why in biblical Judaism the virgin birth very much refutes Jesus' title on messiahship, and now you go repeating the same gibberish that it does not take away messiahship when that is exactly what it does. An honest person does not continuously repeat the same stuff over and over again when shown wrong in an argument. Shame!
There are no primary sources of the life of Sargon. There are only incomplete texts, many of which contradict each other, written years after his death. One of these stories likely gave rise to the Moses adrift on the Nile legend. (continued)
According to one of these, Sargon's mother was a virgin. Other virgin birth myths in the ancient world include Vishnu (several times), Zoroaster (although this myth arose after the Jesus birth myth), Mars, Karna, and Perseus. The myth was not unique to Jesus. Heroes were often expected to have divine fathers. Alexander the Great said his father was a god rather than Philip of Macedonia (continued).
Again, Christians found no problem with the virgin birth story in Matthew and Luke. If indeed, it proved that Jesus was not the Messiah, the early Christians would have realized that and ceased following him. You are arguing from religion, not history or science. Virgins giving birth did not happen then as now.
Aphrodite had no mother or father, she came out of a clam, there aint no virgin birth here either....No I am arguing that the virgin birth as it stands makes no to be included since it hampers Jesus being the messiah. You still refuse to the deal with the question on why would christians make up something that hampers Jesus being the messiah!
I would suggest you go to tektonics and look up all the so-called virgin births of Vishnu, Mars, Karna, Perseus and other. Its obvious you have never examined the primary texts and are just repeating skeptic conspiracy theories without ever fact checking them. Same goes for Sargon and his so-called virgin birth, which had no similarity to Jesus at all.
No I am not an apologist. I only asked him to refer to tektonics because the virgin birth being a pagan theme was deconstructed to the core ages ago. So to continue arguing it shows one has not kept up with the skeptic-christian debate scene. And prof it is irrelevant where an argument comes from; what matters is whether the argument is legitimate
Oh, come now, Koroigetsuga, there's no reason to eschew that label. You're not defending the Virgin Birth because you're a Christian apologist. And you're certainly not defending it because there's any actual historical evidence that it occurred. You're defending it because it's a tenet of Islam.
I'm not arguing from history, otherwise I would take up the miracles argument with you. Nor am I arguing from primary sources because no such thing exists. I am arguing from theology. I have asked about 20 times for you to explain why the christians would make up a theology that hampers Jesus from being the messiah? They would have avoided all the problems if they never interpolated a virgin birth at all. The fact they did suggests it was seen as legititmate from the earliest xtian community
No one but you believe that Mary being a virgin prevents Jesus from being the Messiah. Your reasoning behind this is unsound. You reason thusly because you want it to be true. Religious -- real scholars here -- scholars don't believe the first Christians thought Mary was a virgin. And there exists no conspiracy to spread a lie about virgin birth. It was a theory adopted after Jesus had already been killed. And the church would not have adopted it had it gone against their belief system.
I am not going to argue with you on this in circles. You do not understand how messianic office and patrilineal identity work in Judaism, which I tried explaining to you. You are not dealing with the argument so I'm not going to continue in this circus with you
Furthermore, the site incorrectly used Raymond Brown's book (Birth of the Messiah) as evidence. I've read Father Brown's book. I've met Father Brown. I have Father's autograph on the title page of my copy of The Birth of the Messiah. Father Brown specifically stated that the Biblical account was unhistorical, he referenced other virgin birth accounts of that period, and he accepted the idea only because he had faith. (continued)
I had the good luck to study at a liberal Catholic University. My New Testament taught that in all probability, Jesus was a Pharisaic rabbi who ran afoul of the Romans .I went to law school at Loyola too. Despite being Catholic, it had a gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/trans-gendered club. They had a huge rainbow banner that hung in the lobby -- much larger than the little cross that hung over the security desk. Even as an atheist, I'm forced to admit that I enjoyed my religion classes.
There are no primary sources to these texts. They are just like the Jesus texts -- secondhand passed down from person-to-person, and deified in the process. Yes there are virgin birth stories that appear before Jesus was born. (continued)
I don't read Greek to examine the myths, but I don't have to. And by the way, I was fair at Latin when I studied it 20 years ago, and have read Ovid's version of his mother being impregnated by a golden rain. Ovid wrote during Jesus's lifetime, and he copied this story from much older Greek myths, myths that predated Jesus. As to primary sources, you know there are none. (continued)
"of Perseus's mother being impregnated" that should read. The oldest extant account of Jesus's alleged virgin birth was written centuries after his death. There are no primary sources. I was trained in history. I know what a primary source is. No primary sources to the life of any of these people exist. Mark was written 35 years or so after Jesus died, and the other gospels after that. You are driving me to distraction and random typing. Is this a conversion tactic?
google "tektonics" and search under their database for posts on all the gods you listed from Perseus to all the other alleged virgin births. As the bible says "the truth shall set you free" or continue believing in skeptic conspiracy theories in which case this conversation ends
I found your site -- it is an anti-Semitic website that promotes the killing of abortion doctors as moral. And I should take their word over that of centuries-old documents and well-educated scholars? Tektonics equals trash. Don't send me there if you are trying to convince me. (continued)
Now you are just doing straw-mans. I suggest you go read books actually written by legitimate scholars on the births of Perseus and these these other figures rather than wikipediaing similarities with Jesus' birth. And y argument was not biult on primary sources, I NEVER SAID THERE WERE PRIMARY TEXTS ON JESUS. I asked you to explain what reason christians would have to make a doctrine that undermines Jesus' messiahship which you still haven't answered so this is getting repetitive.
And I have read books by legitimate scholars who wrote books on the virgin story. Hell, some of those legitimate scholars were my teachers. And I never met a one who claimed or even entertained the thought that the Jesus legend was unique. You are speaking from religious conviction not historical evidence.
If you were an honest person you would note that it takes amazing mental gymnastics to connect Jesus' birth without a father to pagan deities where female make phalus' out of wood to impregnate themselves, etc etc. People enjoy using the virgin birth canard forgetting that if you follow the actual stories none of those women were virgins to begin with. They produced children through sex (even the miraculous ones), where as Mary was miraculously impregnanted without a partner.
You are incorrect. Sargon was not born of a virgin. Nor was Mirtha, Dionysus or any of the others skeptic conspiracy theories have put forth. And don't bother giving me wikipedia as a source, go to the original sources as the virgin birth=pagan mythology was debunked decades. Its true various pagan theme repeat themselves in christianity, but this is not one. Nor is the 12 disciples thing, another common charge of skeptic conspiracy theorists
You're relying on what you call negative evidence by asserting that Paul's acknowledgement of the virgin birth is in one of his letters that you assert we do not have. LOL. Jesus, Koroigetsuga, you really believe these are arguments you're offering here?
Oh Prof I' so tempted go Old Testament on your ass...I did not say that all. I said you can't make the argument that Paul did not know about the virgin birth because we do not have all his letters.
I know what you said, and it's a textbook case of the argument from silence, which is fallacious.
By contrast, as I've already noted, Paul *does* refer to Jesus' birth in one of his letters, namely, Galatians. And when he does, he does not say that Jesus was born of a virgin, but, rather, than Jesus was "born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). Paul knew the Greek word for 'virgin'; he used it many times in his letters. But in Galatians 4:4 it's just 'woman'. Add to this Paul's statement in...
...Romans about Jesus being made of the seed ('sperma' in Greek) of David (Romans 1:3), and it becomes clear that Paul had never even heard of the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin.
Paul says Jesus was born of the "seed" of David. Jooie! BUT DAVID DID NOT EXIST IN JESUS' TIME. If Paul felt Jesus had a father he would have mentioned Joseph, instead he gives us an esoteric symbolism of seed of David. Strike 3; your OUT!
"If Paul felt Jesus had a father he would have mentioned Joseph...."
Pure speculation on your part. Since every human being has a mother and a father, one needn't always point that out when discussing the circumstances of a human being's birth. You've got nothing but Islam's belief in the virgin birth, Koroigetsuga. Everything else has been refuted. Give it up already. You're looking quite silly.
The New Testament written in the order that I described means that all four Evangelists could have penned their works believing them to be true. But if Luke wrote first, that means that Mark and Matthew deleted material from the Jesus cycle or that they lied. Either makes no sense.
You are correct of course. The true letters of Paul are the oldest materials in the New Testament. The author of Luke/Acts had clearly some knowledge of Paul's travels, he lacked a full understanding of Paul's theology. Note that Luke had no knowledge of Paul confronting Peter, and Paul does not know the legend of the virgin birth (which he surely would have mentioned in his letters).
I'm fairly certain the virgin birth is the most reliable aspect of christian theology. Consider if Jesus is born of a virgin he cannot be a messiah because he cannot inherit messianic office. to be messiah your father has to come from davidic/solomon line. And adoption does not cut it. If it causes these many theological problems, why would christians make it up? I think christianity is shit, but the virgin birth is definitely part of what the original jewish christians believed.
Because people do not invent theology that is self-refuting. How do we know Jesus came from Galilee and not Bethelhem? Because the Gospels go through ludicrous methods to have into Bethelhem to fulfill Micah 2. If Jesus' history was being made up they would have had him born in Bethelhem and avoided the problem altogether. Same with the virgin birth. Why would christians invent something that sabbotages Jesus' messianic claim?
"people do not invent theology that is self-refuting"
Since when?
In any case, The author of Matthew doesn't go through any great detail to get Jesus born in Bethlehem. He just has Mary and Joseph living there when it's discovered that Mary is pregnant.
It's odd that you would regard "ludicrous methods" as militating in favor of the truth of a story.
people do not go out of their way to invent difficulties for a character they have invented. It is clear from the Nativity narratives of the gospels of Matthew/ Luke that they were faced with having to explain why Jesus grew up in Galilee if he was born in Bethlehem. Both gospels had to invent rather convoluted means to get Jesus born in Bethlehem in accordance with the messianic prophecy in Micah 5:2, then get him moved to Nazareth. Clearly they were stuck with a real person known from Galilee.
:: slaps forehead :: I just remembered, Koroigetsuga, you're a Muslim and Islam claims that Jesus did not have a human father. So of course you're defending the claim.
There are no actual arguments. You've merely asserted that people don't make self-refuting religious claims and that the virgin birth story is too complicated not to be true. I'm underwhelmed -- and that's a charitable assessment. But I realized why you have no actual arguments: it's because your religion (Islam) has the virgin birth of Jesus as a tenet, so you're defending it.
No I never said the virgin birth story is too complicated not to be true. That's you putting words in my mouth.
Could you please actually deal with the arguments put forth? Why did christians invent something that takes Jesus outside the messianic office? Mathew just gets around the problem by finding fake prophecies for Jesus.
The Christians who wrote the New Testament were not working in cohort. Paul wrote first. Then Mark, who was unaware of Paul, wrote. Then Matthew and Luke wrote (unaware of each other) basing their writing on Mark and other sources, Luke wrote Acts, and later the pseudo- Pauline epistles were written. Meanwhile, John and the epistles of pseudo-John were written by a different branch of Christians who had no knowledge of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.
Well, the writers of the Epistles of John clearly had knowledge of the Gospel of John -- I didn't mean to put that in there. But the point is that the creators of the New Testament often worked in isolation. They did not agree with each other on myth or theology.
those "other sources" you mentioned are the Q document(s) or christian oral tradition. I do not see what the New Testament not being written in cohorts has to do with the argument of why Christians would invent something that destroys Jesus' messiahship. The messiahship of Jesus is the most imporant theology in the New Testament. Christians would want proofs for him, they would not purposely manufacture falsehood for what is the central tenet of christianity.
I'm not saying they did. The writers of the Gospels found scripture and made it "fit." Remember, Matthew knew very little of Judaism. Luke know more, but he was writing for Jewish Christians and non-Jewish Christians, not for Jew. They believed what they wrote, but what they believed did not match up with reality or with each other. Also, any scholar who believes that Luke was written before Mark would have a difficult time making a case. (continued)
"No I never said the virgin birth story is too complicated not to be true."
Sure you did. Your comment is just a few places above this one. See, e.g., the part where you talk about the "gospels had to invent rather convoluted means to get Jesus born in Bethlehem."
"Could you please actually deal with the arguments put forth?"
You haven't put forth any arguments. You've asserted a few things. As I noted, you have no arguments because this is a tenet of your faith.
Even Tim Callahan (king of skeptic authors) accepts the Galilee/Bethelhem argument I just posted here. And talking with you is arguing with a wall! ta ta!
I'm not so sure. As I said, Paul never mentions it. Mark, the oldest of the four Gospels doesn't mention it either. Father Raymond Brown, in his study of the Matthiew and Lucian birth narratives (The Birth of the Messiah) notes that the two are historically unreliable. (He believed in the virgin birth only because of "faith.") Mark is believed to have been written at least 35 years after the death of Jesus. If Paul and Mark didn't know, I doubt if the Jewish Christians did.
Paul completely contradicted everything Jesus, Peter and James ever said so he is not reliable on anything. Both Mathew and Mark are debated as the first Gospel. Again title adoption does not exist in Judaism and Islam. If you are born in the tribe of Dan, but raised by a Levite, you still can never be a levite, you will be a Dannite all your life. To be messiah you need a pure patrilineal line to David/Solomon. The virgin birth destroys that because Joseph is not his real father. Why do this?
There is no real debate between scholars about which is the first Gospel. I attended a Catholic University and have enough hours to have minored in religion if I cared to. Go to the library and pick up a few recent studies of the New Testament. Even the Pope accepts Mark as being written first.
A more honest assessment would be that the majority of scholars stick with Markian priority. Even if Mark was written first, one could argue he omitted the virgin birth because we know he was portraying a VERY Jewish messiah. Furthermore Luke argues that he wrote his gospel because the others were filled with errors, and even Marcion felt Luke was the most reliable gospel and he was the first person to conseive a canon.....Regardless, why would christians invent such a problem for their messiah?
What problem did they create? Judaism does not expect a Messiah born of a virgin. The Jews were led into the Jewish uprising lead largely by a man they accepted as the Messiah who did not claim to be born of a virgin. Indeed, Jews of the second century thought Christian claims of a virgin birth to be ludicrous. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke emerged after Christians had been ejected from the Jewish places of worship.
That's my point. the OT does not describe a virgin born messiah. In order to be the messiah you have to have a PURE patrilineal descent from Solomon/ David. This means your father has to have Davidic blood in order for you to be messiah. Since Jesus came from a virgin he cannot inherit messianc office because he does not have a pure patrilineal descent because he has no father. And being adopted by Joseph does not count because title cannot be given by adoption.
the Q document comes from the earliest testimonies (I think) of christian mythology. Luke and Mathew post-date Paul and Mark, but the Q data they contain is earlier than them.
Yup and both Mathew and Luke have the virgin birth. the commonality in both shows it comes from the Q document
As for the virgin birth being pagan mythology. this has been debunked. Its true that the whole symbolic eating of Jesus is purely pagan, but the virigin birth is unique to Jesus. No Mithra was born of a rock, not a virgin. No Krisha was conceived sexually, not a virgin. As are all the other fakes invented skeptic conspiracy theorists.
The virgin birth was common at that time. I again refer you to the work of the translator and scholar Raymond Brown, Its dates at least to the story of Sargon the Great at least 1900 hundred years before Jesus.
Furthermore, the Q document may well post-date Mark, and there is no proof that the virgin birth legend came Q. BTW, Sargon also the origin of the Moses being found in the river legend.
The similarities between Sargon and Moses are dubious. google the article "Was the story of Moses stolen from that of the Assyrian king Sargon?"....How was the virgin birth common at the time? Please do not repeat the common lies fabricated by skeptic conspiracy theories of Romulas, or Perseus, or dionysus, or Horus being born virgins. These have been debunked. all of them were born sexually.
I'm not an apologist or anything, and I know there are many discrepancies in Scripture. However, some scholars think the end of Romans 1 is a set up for Romans 2, which starts off by saying "Who are you to judge!" In this view, it's a literary device meant to put the reader/hearer in the position of one judging, and then slams the point home - "Who are you to judge, when you do the same things!" James McGrath is one of the ones I've read who thought this was the case.
I happen to think that's a correct take on one of the functions of Romans 1. However, it *also* functions to convey Paul's diagnosis of the human condition, i.e., people were not ignorant of God, but rather they knew God and turned their back on him.
I am an atheist. I believe in the book of Acts, Paul was referring to the worship of the "Unknown God" when he mentioned there ignorance. I don't believe he was referring to there worship of all of the other "pagan" gods. He believed that by acknowledging the "Unknown God", they were worshiping the "on true God", but only in there ignorance.
aryasangha0125 1 month ago
I didn't ask to be an atheist. Praise Bill Gates.
themakerofmine 3 months ago
WHY IS THIS SO SCHOCKING??? DID'NT PAUL HIMSELF SAY " I SAY WHATEVER I HAVE TO,DEPENDING ON WHO HE IS TALKING WITH AT THE TIME?? HE HIMSELF SAID HE WOULD LIE IN ORDER TO CONVERT PEOPLE... HEY, WHAT THE HELL, IT'S PAUL...
siannarino 5 months ago
@siannarino Paul would lie in order to convert people!. How shocking – Religious people will do anything to perpetuate their superstitious nonsense. We would all be better off without them. These frauds claim to occupy the moral high ground. Yet they behave appallingly
akanippy 2 weeks ago
Something about Paul has always bothered me. Still haven't put my finger on it.
finderfinder100 6 months ago
@finderfinder100 Me too! Reading his letters in the New Testament...I always got an odd vibe... just a feeling in my heart that something wasn't right. Comes off as very arrogant, awfully full of himself. Sure loves to talk about himself, and glorify himself...
Without a doubt... a liar. Deceiver. False prophet. False apostle.
Subhanallah82 2 days ago
@Subhanallah82 I think part of it for me is the whole road to Damascus conversion which just seems to smack of something a con man would try to sell.
finderfinder100 2 days ago
Evil vs Suffering this is the crux. It's the difference between the Abrahamic worldview which generates monotheistc Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Easteern worldview which generates pantheistic and non-theistc Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism. The former is moralisic believing that morality can be enforced by rules; the latter being essentially existential, side-stepping moral philosophy, offering techniques to elimate suffering.
Antarblue 7 months ago
loved the intro ... Cheers from Brazil
Paviocurto77 7 months ago
@Paviocurto77 Thanks.
ProfMTH 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 the bible also says ifna person is raped, she has to marry the peron who rapped her
DavidNeff2011 8 months ago
Galatians 1:16 can be translated as "reveal his Son IN me" or "TO me"
KayBeeEee1983 9 months ago
I know this may not have anything to do with the point being made in this video, but "idol worship" is probably one of the oldest strawmen of Judeo-Christianity against polytheistic religions. The "infallibility and inerrancy" of scripture, holy relics, the Ark of the Covenant etc, are just degrees of object veneration.
Vexille1983 9 months ago
I wish I was as articulate as you Prof. Your videos inspire me to debate. Thank you
hawklord2001 1 year ago
@hawklord2001 Thank you very much. To the extent that I'm any more aritculate than you, it's most likely just because I've had more practice and been around longer. ;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH You can never trust a homosexual.
Tell me honestly. Were you an atheist before or after you found out you were gay?
knowwaie 9 months ago
@knowwaie "You can never trust a homosexual."
I always appreciate when a bigot clearly states his/her bigotry right up front.
"Were you an atheist before or after you found out you were gay?"
I was gay LONG before I was an atheist.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@ProfMTH So i was right.
I'm sorry, is homosexuality a religion or something? I wasn't aware that bigotry was disapproval of abhorrent behavior..
Oh, how definitions change in our psychotic liberal world. Little to you know your entire youtube life is nothing but attacking a religion that doesn't approve your behavior. In reality, you are the bigot. I'm just point out the fact that homosexuality, though you're free to do so, is still ridiculously disgusting and has no benefit in our world.
knowwaie 9 months ago
@knowwaie "So i was right."
About what?
"I wasn't aware that bigotry was disapproval of abhorrent behavior."
Oh, I have a feeling that your ignorance encompasses far more than just your failure to recognize your own baseless anti-homosexual animus.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@ProfMTH Explain it to me. You're telling me that if think homosexuality to be a perverse behavior which has no benefit, then i'm a bigot? You realize that nature itself if bigoted? Baseless? Homosexuality is baseless. What is the basis for homosexual behavior?
And don't give me this crap about animals being homosexual. Then killing and rape could also be justified since they are natural behavior?
That's right, you psychotic liberals actually think your feelings determine reality.
knowwaie 9 months ago
@knowwaie "You're telling me that if think homosexuality to be a perverse behavior which has no benefit, then i'm a bigot?"
No, that's merely wrong. The bigot part was in response to your statement about never trusting a homosexual.
" Homosexuality is baseless."
Haven't a clue what that means. More importantly, I suspect you don't either. But you have wasted enough of my time with your gibberish. I hope the nurse gets to you soon with your early evening meds. Have a great life! :-)
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@knowwaie
You're telling me that if think homosexuality to be a perverse behavior which has no benefit, then i'm a bigot?
Yes, a huge fucking bigot whom I'd happily smack ten shades of shit out, and who's no better then a KKK member. Bigots are fucking bigots and the only good one is a dead one.
And if any liberals are psychotic towards you, it's because you're a raging douche and an obnoxious piece of shite. You DESERVE people being psychotic towards you, because you're a fucking hater.
TheSkunkCat 9 months ago
@knowwaie "homosexuality...is still ridiculously disgusting and has no benefit in our world."
That's your opinion. You live in a different world than the rest of freethinking society. What does homosexuality have to do with this video, anyway? Did seeing a guy without his shirt on get you horny? You're the definition of a troll.
"Then killing and rape could also be justified since they are natural behavior?"
The bible justifies them. It also justifies torture and child murder.
KayBeeEee1983 9 months ago
@knowwaie What is the basis for STRAIGHT behavior. Um, because you're attracted to the opposite sex. Not everyone is the same. Not everyone is attracted to the same sex. BIGOT.
lillibeth13 7 months ago
@ProfMTH I, for one, find homosexuals to be very trustworthy... it's the religious hypocrites you have to watch out for... like Ted Haggard.. or, you know, Saul of Tarsus...
lilgrasshoppah 9 months ago
I don't feel that argument from the book "Jesus, Interrupted" was very convincing.
Even when I was a christian, my view of a doctrine or perspective of the unsaved could change dramatically within the space of a year. You could easily say the same about Paul.
Prizm4 1 year ago
This is not enough. To know, that the speaking paul is different from the real one, does not discredit the book itself, it just reveals, that the speeches of the apostles have been construed out of fantasy. But that doesn't discredit the council of jerusalem or the mere possibility of paul's evangelizing travelings. I should read the book for myself.
mardastheEitheist 1 year ago
@mardastheEitheist Yes, you should.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
''Paul'' was a good liar :)
ShlomoHaAvinoo 11 months ago
What struck me about Paul was how Acts has him performing miracles, including raising the dead, though Paul himself says nothing about it. And it's clear from his actual writings that he was not a humble man; something like that wouldn't have slipped his mind.
It's inconceivable that the Jesus myth was immune to this kind of elaboration, when Paul's own testimony wasn't considered fabulous enough to stand on its own.
MrZardoz777 1 year ago
@MrZardoz777 Indeed.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@MrZardoz777 "And it's clear from his actual writings that he was not a humble man"...my thoughts exactly. I read his epistles in the New Testament, and more than anything else, it left me thinking, "Wow...awfully arrogant..."
Subhanallah82 2 days ago
There are some commentators who regard the sermon on Mars Hill as one of Paul's errors and failures. He did not succeed in founding a church in Athens. He may well have learned that his tactics there were wrong, hence the very different position taken in Romans.
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 year ago
@NevilleRhysBarnes That would be a remarkable change in Paul's worldview. It seems to me more likely that the Areopagus speech is the work of the author of Acts rather than Paul.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
One might recall that "Passions" are forms of suffering, to be healed, not to be punished.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
Couldn't it also be that Paul himself was inconsistent?
After all, it's hardly unknown for people to say one thing to an internal audience and something else entirely to get them to join in the first place.
This wouldn't be much better for Christianity, of course, since not only does it make Paul look bad, it also leaves open the contradiction as to which is supposed to be true. In much the same way, couldn't Peter have just been lying about how Judas died?
AKASquared 1 year ago
@AKASquared "Couldn't it also be that Paul himself was inconsistent?"
It's certainly possible. And, as you note, that doesn't make things any better for the Bible.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
you started in the wrong place.... romans 1:18 for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
those that "are without excuse" are those "who hold the truth in unrighteousness"...or people who knew- not the ignorant
TheSpydermunkee 1 year ago
If you want to understand your Creator and His Word, (The Bible), learn Ancient Hebrew/Aramaic, and read it in the original language, in the light of the culture of the people it was written to. Translations and worse, books based on translations, are flawed to say the least This goes for thw New Testament also, although the book of Matthew is the only original that has been found so far.
ewelambb10 1 year ago
@ewelambb10 Do you have anything to say in refutation of the case that's been laid out in the video?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@Omnicron777 All analogies limp, but I think this one is apt.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Paul gives us so much to work with doesn't he? Isn't it ironic that he and Jerusalem church had such a battle but Paul won the political battle as he spread his gospel with the largely pagan Gentiles which outnumbered the Jews. Funny how we call something christianity when by all rights it should be called paulianity.
BillDad74 1 year ago
PLEASE WATCH ALL 10 PARTS OF 'MISQUOTING JESUS' ON YOUTUBE IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE
takewhole 1 year ago
@takewhole If I want to understand the Bible, I'll read it myself. I need no 7th-hand interpretations of the text.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 The reference I gave was to a professor of theology who actually knows a lot about the bible that is true and agreed upon by most Christian scholars. It is not a 7th hand interpretation as you put it, it is the CLOSEST interpretation.
takewhole 1 year ago
@takewhole ahhh, a theologist. someone who reads the bible everyday. Now, closest interpretation? how can one say its the closest interpretation? can one know the intention of the authors? and no matter what, we are all many many interpretations from the original.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
Ok Prof, question for ya. Do these passages indicate Paul was a monotheist (assuming the Christian god is one god) or monolatrism? Did they believe in Zeus and were punished for worshipping him or was zeus and the others merely fabrications? I get the impression they believed in multiple gods, but could only worship the Judeo-Christian father/son mishmash whatever...
MercuryRis 1 year ago
@MercuryRis I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests Paul was anything other than a monotheist. There are lots of declarations of monotheism in his writings as well as rejections of the idea the idea that gods other than the Christian god are real.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
What I like about him is he went to seminary and thats when he figured it out, the author, not Paul. BTW I hope YT fixes this buffering problem soon, its really annoying!
MercuryRis 1 year ago
Is this the book, I think it is--where Bart Ehrman makes the assertion that Paul did not write a letter because someone else scribed his dictation. If that is the case there are 1000s of business and government letters sent and read in businesses and governmental agencies which are fraud, fake, total fabrications.
nighthawk7878 1 year ago
We just can't trust anybody anymore, especially if they dictate their thoughts to someone else? That means they did not write it and therefore would not vouch for what the scribe/typist wrote down. Man, we've got trouble in river city!!
nighthawk7878 1 year ago
@nighthawk7878 "We just can't trust anybody anymore, especially if they dictate their thoughts to someone else?"
That's not what I've said. What *are* you talking about?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH You've just make one of the errors that Ehrman and other scholars make!! Please put my two comments together and see if you don't get a totally different interpretation of my second comment.
Hint: They are one paragraph and nothing there is about you.
nighthawk7878 1 year ago
Hey you are good at video. What would you say to me if I told you that I have written at least three very different accounts of my own conversion. People are creative--they can do that. Why would you not give Luke and Paul that liberty?
nighthawk7878 1 year ago
@nighthawk7878 "What would you say to me if I told you that I have written at least three very different accounts of my own conversion."
I'd probably ask to see them so that I could decide just how different they are and in what ways.
"Why would you not give Luke and Paul that liberty?"
They're stories are different in significant, problematic ways, as I explained in the video.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Hi Mitch. I have critiqued this video in great depth on my blog, "A Biblical Defense of Catholicism" (post dated 7-5-10), providing many arguments from logic and the biblical texts themselves. Your counter-reply would be most welcomed, and I would be delighted to continue the dialogue after you have become familiar with what I contend are the true (and rather obvious) biblical positions on these matters. I have done five critiques of your videos in five days and hope to do many more. Take care.
DaveArmstrong1958 1 year ago
Have you heard of the Old perspective (old tradition) vs. the New perspective of Paul( re-intrepret of the letters of Paul based on historical anicent culture)?
CloudsofBliss 1 year ago
@CloudsofBliss I've certainly heard of understanding Paul in the context of the culture in which he wrote. That makes sense. Why do you ask?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
i sometimes wonder if the bible was a cruel joke played on idiots
or like a novel written from diffrent perspectives
and some dumbass idolized it as truth?
chris22452245 2 years ago
Where can I pick up that guy?
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
In Acts 17:22-31, Paul was speaking to unbelievers that he was trying to convert, so he tries to persuade them in a rather sympathetic tone.
But in Romans 1:18-32, Paul is speaking to believers about unbelievers. Now his goal to keep the sheep in the flock by demonizing unbelievers and their unbelief in the harshest terms possible, a tactic which is designed to keep believers in line by engendering fear of unbelievers and their world of unbelief. Divide and conquer.
mastereck 2 years ago
That's certainly a plausible explanation of the difference.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Dr. George Lamsa translated the verse in question as: "For the times of ignorance God has made to pass, and at this time He has commanded all men, everywhere, to repent." (Acts 17:30 Lamsa). I also want to mention is that the Aramaic word ta-yu-tha most obviously means: an erring, straying, error, deception misleading" rather than "ignorance."
Henok30 2 years ago
Exactly my thoughts!
This is what we call a perfect marketing and PR strategy with a certain political goal, to gain more voters and to retain those that are already on your side.
In the first case you appeal to the fact that he can also be part of this amazing party. In the second case you appeal to the uniqueness of belonging to this amazing party.
Well there is one think I have to recognise, he was one smart manipulator.
eldadevata 2 years ago
In The Jesus Mysteries, Peter Gandy and Timothy Freke argue that Paul was actually a gnostic, and the writings that ascribed to him, in which he criticised the gnostics were not in fact written by him.
gerontodon 2 years ago
I think he is the father of Gnosticism. Paul is a liar just like Peter. I wonder why Christians don't see their faith is also a lie. I can't find this passage '... to them I became a Jew, and to the gentiles I became one...' or somethin like it. Paul had to lie so that people will convert. And he didn't expect this will be used to kill millions of Jews in the future. So the whole Christian agenda is to lie just to convert people, what a bunch of plastic people.
junjimalaza 2 years ago
Good to see more Bart Ehrman readers, but just wondering what exactly are you a professor of? Is MTH your name's initial?
5 stars
theunraveler 2 years ago
The name is Mitch (MiTcH), and I teach various law courses and courses on debate. Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Paul was guilty of "felony murder" in the death of Stephen. He was a co-conspirator in a felony resulting in a death.
He was an unrepentant sinner when he had his Damascus road experience,[Acts 9:1-3] . He was an unbaptised person.[Acts 9:18] at Damascus road. I wonder why Jesus would choose such a man to preach his message.
Paul did not have the required 2 or 3 witnessses. The men with Paul did not see anyone [acts 9:7] The men did not hear the voice [Acts 22:9]
This tale is not believable.
ebaltrace 2 years ago
AND, Ebal, the portrayal of his conversion in Acts is decidedly different from Paul's own description of his conversion, which appears in Galatians 1. It describes a private, internal revelation, while Acts portrays the opposite, i.e., a flashy, very not private revelation.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I don't think Jesus ever chosed Paul, all of it was Paul's own experience, for cryin out loud he was hallucinating, Sh'ul or Paul is a liar.
junjimalaza 2 years ago
Good point! People who have been out in the sun too long often display symptoms similar to Paul's experience on Damascus road. Physical collapse, blindness, and hallucination.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Not to sound like an apologist, but the Acts passage purports to be a transcription of a sermon literally spoken to the Greeks, yes?
Well, might it just be that it's impolitic to tell someone to their face that they've consciously strayed down the path of darkness and that God has given them over to a vile and depraved mind?
RayBobb 2 years ago
Which is a plausible explanation, RayBobb. It's just that Paul goes on and on in his own writings about how he tells people these sorts of things directly because he's not interested in avoiding persecution.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Didn't know that! Interesting.
Also, just wanted to say I'm finding these videos to be totally fascinating. Thanks a million!
RayBobb 2 years ago
You're welcome. Thank *you*.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
What's always been strange to me is that the epistles are considered by many, if I'm not mistaken, to be the oldest and most authentic form of Christianity, yet time and time again it seems to completely contradict and replace with new doctrine what the gospels or acts appear to teach.
klalkity 2 years ago
Well, the epistles aren't "the oldest and most authentic form of Christianity," but many of them are among the oldest Christian documents that we have. And, yes, they often do differ from the gospels and other texts that came after them. The Christian "story" changed over time. One can see some of the changes happening across the four canonical gospels as well as in the differences between the gospels and the epistles.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Osbourne you really lost me when you started saying I'm anti-semtiic and worse that I am a holocaust denier. My parents are ashkenazi jews, and my greatgrandparents are holocaust suvivors. So enough said. Before I thought you were stubborn, but now its occurs to me you are just senile. GOODBYE!
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
I apologize for my assumptions. Your post on my page immediately followed that of a holocaust denier, and you made some of the same arguments he did. I will withdraw the offending remarks and delete the post. Again, I apologize.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
My pleasure.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
The early text do not support the idea of a virgin birth. And, as I noted, there were competing claims to a virgin birth. And yes, there did exist myths that Sargon was born of a virgin. You are arguing from religion, not from a point of historical or scientific accuracy.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
My argument is people do not purposely invent theological problems. When you are making up a religion you won't make up things that cause problems for your central tenets. And the messiahship of Jesus is the central tenet of Christianity. Since everything on moshiach is lineage based the Gospel writers have no reason to invent a doctrine that hampers Jesus being the messiah. They would only leave it in the story if it was something just undeniable at the time, similar to his birth in Galilee.
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
The only virgin that ever gave birth was my mother, and she did it twice.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
lol
ProfMTH 2 years ago
You touch upon something important here, because Paul's statements in the epistle about pagans having no excuse is a key answer to the "why would God punish pagans who haven't heard of Jesus" question that Christian apologetics are often asked. The book "Reasons to Believe" bases its answer almost entirely off of Paul's statements, which led to a Catholic distinction between "vincible ignorance" and "invincible ignorance." (BTW, "invincible ignorance" is an interesting-sounding phrase.)
tifforo1 2 years ago
"Invincible ignorance" does have an interesting ring to it, and it's an interesting concept in Catholic theology.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
In Judaism title goes by who your phyisical father is. Since Jesus does not have a father, he can never inherit the title of moschiach ben David; the messiah. Why would christians do this? Why would they essentially make it impossible for Jesus to be the messiah by saying he was virgin born? By doing this they have essentially created an unsolvable conundrum. Why make a problem for the most important theology of Christianity?
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
Judaism is decided by the mother not the father. And a virgin birth was largely expected of many ancients for any god-made-man. Note that the virgin birth legend did not seem to happen until Christianity spread beyond the Jewish community.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
you are incorrect. in fact the whole mother deciding who a Jew is a later developement (nothing in the OT talks about this). However tribal title in Judaism goes by father. If your dad is a levite, you are a levite. To be a messiah you must have a pure, uncorrupted lineage from David/ Solomon. That lineage is patrilineal. Read Genesis and Chronicles, all lineages are determined patrilineally not matrilineally
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
Judaism is not based sole on the Jewish Bible.Furthermore, I don't understand your claim. Are you arguing that Jesus was not Jewish because his mother was Jewish and his father was God? What are you trying to say?
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I am arguing that the earliest christians very much had the belief of a virgin birth of Jesus. Because they would not make up theology that takes Jesus out of messianic office.
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
We will have to agree to disagree. The evidence indicates that Mark and Paul did not know of the virgin birth. Furthermore, science indicates that a virgin birth is impossible. Also, the similarities between the alleged births of Sargon, Moses, and Jesus are a matter of historical record.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Science is relative and Paul not speaking on virgin birth is what in fallacies is known as arguing a negative. Just because Paul does not mention it does not mean he did not know about it. But importantly we don't have all of Paul's letters, and most were written in his name, so you cannot rule out the argument that he did know about them
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
Yet the one time Paul mentions the birth of Jesus -- in his letter to the Galatians -- he says Jesus was "born of a woman," not a virgin. It's not as if Paul didn't know the Greek word for virgin. He uses it several times in his letters, but not in reference to the mother of Jesus.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
We don't have all Paul's letters. We have some we know to be by Paul, some we know are not by Paul, and some that may or may not be by Paul. But I don't know what you mean by "science is relative." But the science I believe states that a virgin did not give birth to Jesus in 1 CE. If you believe this for religious reasons, I understand. But I do not accept this as scientific.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I'm not going to have an argument with you on miracles. That's off topic. Regardless I am glad you concede that we do have from Paul is a fraction of his works. So negative evidence is not evidence. There were other gospels and other epistles....But this is irrelevant to the simple fact that neither of you have replied to the original questions. Why would christians make this up? Why would they add something that takes messiahship away from Jesus, unless it was undeniable doctrine of the era?
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
It very simple. First, I agree with you that the writer of Luke/Acts did not know Paul. I've already said that. Furthermore, as I said, Father Raymond Brown, in his The Birth of the Messiah, has amply demonstrated that such legends were not uncommon at the time in the Greco-Roman world. As a history student in college, I read virgin birth stories about Sargon the Great going back almost 2000 before Jesus. Virgin birth was expected of larger-than-life characters. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
The virgin birth legend creates no problem for the Christ claim of Christians. Mary is supposed to relate back to David. Christians see no problem with this now, and they did not when Matthew and Luke was wrote.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
"Matthew and Luke were wrote."
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Osborne I'm going to repeat this one final time. You cannot be messiah because biblically patrilineal lineage is what determines title. So Mary being connected to David is irrelevant. Your father whose father whose father whose father etc etc has to be David. A PATRILINEAL lineage to David. Since Jesus is without father he cannot have a connection to David patrlineally so he cannot be messiah. So virgin birth=Jesus not messiah. Get it yet?
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
If you are arguing that Mary was a virgin, you are wasting time in responding to me. Mary was not a virgin, and the old texts in the New Testament do not refer to her as a virgin. The oldest are the letters of Paul, and he does not know of the virgin birth myth. Mark in next in age. Mark does not know of the virgin birth. The early Christians after Paul and Mark invented the virgin birth myth. The virgin myth does not take away from the Christians' messiah claim. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Osborne now you are just arguing in circles. I explained to you Sargon was not virgin born as his primary sources show, yet you continue repeating just that. I showed you why in biblical Judaism the virgin birth very much refutes Jesus' title on messiahship, and now you go repeating the same gibberish that it does not take away messiahship when that is exactly what it does. An honest person does not continuously repeat the same stuff over and over again when shown wrong in an argument. Shame!
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
There are no primary sources of the life of Sargon. There are only incomplete texts, many of which contradict each other, written years after his death. One of these stories likely gave rise to the Moses adrift on the Nile legend. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
According to one of these, Sargon's mother was a virgin. Other virgin birth myths in the ancient world include Vishnu (several times), Zoroaster (although this myth arose after the Jesus birth myth), Mars, Karna, and Perseus. The myth was not unique to Jesus. Heroes were often expected to have divine fathers. Alexander the Great said his father was a god rather than Philip of Macedonia (continued).
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Again, Christians found no problem with the virgin birth story in Matthew and Luke. If indeed, it proved that Jesus was not the Messiah, the early Christians would have realized that and ceased following him. You are arguing from religion, not history or science. Virgins giving birth did not happen then as now.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
While I'm at it, Hesiod claimed that Aphrodite was born without a mother, virgin or otherwise, and this was widely believed by many.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Aphrodite had no mother or father, she came out of a clam, there aint no virgin birth here either....No I am arguing that the virgin birth as it stands makes no to be included since it hampers Jesus being the messiah. You still refuse to the deal with the question on why would christians make up something that hampers Jesus being the messiah!
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
I would suggest you go to tektonics and look up all the so-called virgin births of Vishnu, Mars, Karna, Perseus and other. Its obvious you have never examined the primary texts and are just repeating skeptic conspiracy theories without ever fact checking them. Same goes for Sargon and his so-called virgin birth, which had no similarity to Jesus at all.
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
Ah, the great irony of a Muslim apologist referring someone to a Christian apologetic website on the matter of the Virgin Birth. lol
ProfMTH 2 years ago
No I am not an apologist. I only asked him to refer to tektonics because the virgin birth being a pagan theme was deconstructed to the core ages ago. So to continue arguing it shows one has not kept up with the skeptic-christian debate scene. And prof it is irrelevant where an argument comes from; what matters is whether the argument is legitimate
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
"No I'm am not an apologist."
Oh, come now, Koroigetsuga, there's no reason to eschew that label. You're not defending the Virgin Birth because you're a Christian apologist. And you're certainly not defending it because there's any actual historical evidence that it occurred. You're defending it because it's a tenet of Islam.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I'm not arguing from history, otherwise I would take up the miracles argument with you. Nor am I arguing from primary sources because no such thing exists. I am arguing from theology. I have asked about 20 times for you to explain why the christians would make up a theology that hampers Jesus from being the messiah? They would have avoided all the problems if they never interpolated a virgin birth at all. The fact they did suggests it was seen as legititmate from the earliest xtian community
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
No one but you believe that Mary being a virgin prevents Jesus from being the Messiah. Your reasoning behind this is unsound. You reason thusly because you want it to be true. Religious -- real scholars here -- scholars don't believe the first Christians thought Mary was a virgin. And there exists no conspiracy to spread a lie about virgin birth. It was a theory adopted after Jesus had already been killed. And the church would not have adopted it had it gone against their belief system.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I am not going to argue with you on this in circles. You do not understand how messianic office and patrilineal identity work in Judaism, which I tried explaining to you. You are not dealing with the argument so I'm not going to continue in this circus with you
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
Furthermore, the site incorrectly used Raymond Brown's book (Birth of the Messiah) as evidence. I've read Father Brown's book. I've met Father Brown. I have Father's autograph on the title page of my copy of The Birth of the Messiah. Father Brown specifically stated that the Biblical account was unhistorical, he referenced other virgin birth accounts of that period, and he accepted the idea only because he had faith. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
"Father Brown specifically stated that the Biblical account was unhistorical...."
He did indeed. And he took a lot of heat for it from conservative Catholics, among others.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I had the good luck to study at a liberal Catholic University. My New Testament taught that in all probability, Jesus was a Pharisaic rabbi who ran afoul of the Romans .I went to law school at Loyola too. Despite being Catholic, it had a gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/trans-gendered club. They had a huge rainbow banner that hung in the lobby -- much larger than the little cross that hung over the security desk. Even as an atheist, I'm forced to admit that I enjoyed my religion classes.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
correction "My New Testament professor"
and that was "Loyola Chicago"
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Tektonics pulls Father Brown from his grave and puts words in his mouth.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
One of the most common tactics of religious apologists: putting words in other people's mouths.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
There are no primary sources to these texts. They are just like the Jesus texts -- secondhand passed down from person-to-person, and deified in the process. Yes there are virgin birth stories that appear before Jesus was born. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I don't read Greek to examine the myths, but I don't have to. And by the way, I was fair at Latin when I studied it 20 years ago, and have read Ovid's version of his mother being impregnated by a golden rain. Ovid wrote during Jesus's lifetime, and he copied this story from much older Greek myths, myths that predated Jesus. As to primary sources, you know there are none. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
"of Perseus's mother being impregnated" that should read. The oldest extant account of Jesus's alleged virgin birth was written centuries after his death. There are no primary sources. I was trained in history. I know what a primary source is. No primary sources to the life of any of these people exist. Mark was written 35 years or so after Jesus died, and the other gospels after that. You are driving me to distraction and random typing. Is this a conversion tactic?
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
And finally, what the Hell is tektonics?
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
google "tektonics" and search under their database for posts on all the gods you listed from Perseus to all the other alleged virgin births. As the bible says "the truth shall set you free" or continue believing in skeptic conspiracy theories in which case this conversation ends
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
I found your site -- it is an anti-Semitic website that promotes the killing of abortion doctors as moral. And I should take their word over that of centuries-old documents and well-educated scholars? Tektonics equals trash. Don't send me there if you are trying to convince me. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Now you are just doing straw-mans. I suggest you go read books actually written by legitimate scholars on the births of Perseus and these these other figures rather than wikipediaing similarities with Jesus' birth. And y argument was not biult on primary sources, I NEVER SAID THERE WERE PRIMARY TEXTS ON JESUS. I asked you to explain what reason christians would have to make a doctrine that undermines Jesus' messiahship which you still haven't answered so this is getting repetitive.
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
And I have read books by legitimate scholars who wrote books on the virgin story. Hell, some of those legitimate scholars were my teachers. And I never met a one who claimed or even entertained the thought that the Jesus legend was unique. You are speaking from religious conviction not historical evidence.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
If you were an honest person you would note that it takes amazing mental gymnastics to connect Jesus' birth without a father to pagan deities where female make phalus' out of wood to impregnate themselves, etc etc. People enjoy using the virgin birth canard forgetting that if you follow the actual stories none of those women were virgins to begin with. They produced children through sex (even the miraculous ones), where as Mary was miraculously impregnanted without a partner.
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
You are incorrect. Sargon was not born of a virgin. Nor was Mirtha, Dionysus or any of the others skeptic conspiracy theories have put forth. And don't bother giving me wikipedia as a source, go to the original sources as the virgin birth=pagan mythology was debunked decades. Its true various pagan theme repeat themselves in christianity, but this is not one. Nor is the 12 disciples thing, another common charge of skeptic conspiracy theorists
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
"negative evidence is not evidence"
You're relying on what you call negative evidence by asserting that Paul's acknowledgement of the virgin birth is in one of his letters that you assert we do not have. LOL. Jesus, Koroigetsuga, you really believe these are arguments you're offering here?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Oh Prof I' so tempted go Old Testament on your ass...I did not say that all. I said you can't make the argument that Paul did not know about the virgin birth because we do not have all his letters.
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
I know what you said, and it's a textbook case of the argument from silence, which is fallacious.
By contrast, as I've already noted, Paul *does* refer to Jesus' birth in one of his letters, namely, Galatians. And when he does, he does not say that Jesus was born of a virgin, but, rather, than Jesus was "born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). Paul knew the Greek word for 'virgin'; he used it many times in his letters. But in Galatians 4:4 it's just 'woman'. Add to this Paul's statement in...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...Romans about Jesus being made of the seed ('sperma' in Greek) of David (Romans 1:3), and it becomes clear that Paul had never even heard of the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Paul says Jesus was born of the "seed" of David. Jooie! BUT DAVID DID NOT EXIST IN JESUS' TIME. If Paul felt Jesus had a father he would have mentioned Joseph, instead he gives us an esoteric symbolism of seed of David. Strike 3; your OUT!
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
"If Paul felt Jesus had a father he would have mentioned Joseph...."
Pure speculation on your part. Since every human being has a mother and a father, one needn't always point that out when discussing the circumstances of a human being's birth. You've got nothing but Islam's belief in the virgin birth, Koroigetsuga. Everything else has been refuted. Give it up already. You're looking quite silly.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
The New Testament written in the order that I described means that all four Evangelists could have penned their works believing them to be true. But if Luke wrote first, that means that Mark and Matthew deleted material from the Jesus cycle or that they lied. Either makes no sense.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
2 Thessolonossians is written by a pauline apocalyptic NOTby PAul himself
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
You are correct of course. The true letters of Paul are the oldest materials in the New Testament. The author of Luke/Acts had clearly some knowledge of Paul's travels, he lacked a full understanding of Paul's theology. Note that Luke had no knowledge of Paul confronting Peter, and Paul does not know the legend of the virgin birth (which he surely would have mentioned in his letters).
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I'm fairly certain the virgin birth is the most reliable aspect of christian theology. Consider if Jesus is born of a virgin he cannot be a messiah because he cannot inherit messianic office. to be messiah your father has to come from davidic/solomon line. And adoption does not cut it. If it causes these many theological problems, why would christians make it up? I think christianity is shit, but the virgin birth is definitely part of what the original jewish christians believed.
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
"I'm fairly certain the virgin birth is the most reliable aspect of christian theology."
What is the basis of your certainty?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"What is the basis of your certainty? "
Because people do not invent theology that is self-refuting. How do we know Jesus came from Galilee and not Bethelhem? Because the Gospels go through ludicrous methods to have into Bethelhem to fulfill Micah 2. If Jesus' history was being made up they would have had him born in Bethelhem and avoided the problem altogether. Same with the virgin birth. Why would christians invent something that sabbotages Jesus' messianic claim?
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
"people do not invent theology that is self-refuting"
Since when?
In any case, The author of Matthew doesn't go through any great detail to get Jesus born in Bethlehem. He just has Mary and Joseph living there when it's discovered that Mary is pregnant.
It's odd that you would regard "ludicrous methods" as militating in favor of the truth of a story.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
people do not go out of their way to invent difficulties for a character they have invented. It is clear from the Nativity narratives of the gospels of Matthew/ Luke that they were faced with having to explain why Jesus grew up in Galilee if he was born in Bethlehem. Both gospels had to invent rather convoluted means to get Jesus born in Bethlehem in accordance with the messianic prophecy in Micah 5:2, then get him moved to Nazareth. Clearly they were stuck with a real person known from Galilee.
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
:: slaps forehead :: I just remembered, Koroigetsuga, you're a Muslim and Islam claims that Jesus did not have a human father. So of course you're defending the claim.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Please actually deal with the arguments put forth
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
There are no actual arguments. You've merely asserted that people don't make self-refuting religious claims and that the virgin birth story is too complicated not to be true. I'm underwhelmed -- and that's a charitable assessment. But I realized why you have no actual arguments: it's because your religion (Islam) has the virgin birth of Jesus as a tenet, so you're defending it.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
No I never said the virgin birth story is too complicated not to be true. That's you putting words in my mouth.
Could you please actually deal with the arguments put forth? Why did christians invent something that takes Jesus outside the messianic office? Mathew just gets around the problem by finding fake prophecies for Jesus.
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
The Christians who wrote the New Testament were not working in cohort. Paul wrote first. Then Mark, who was unaware of Paul, wrote. Then Matthew and Luke wrote (unaware of each other) basing their writing on Mark and other sources, Luke wrote Acts, and later the pseudo- Pauline epistles were written. Meanwhile, John and the epistles of pseudo-John were written by a different branch of Christians who had no knowledge of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Well, the writers of the Epistles of John clearly had knowledge of the Gospel of John -- I didn't mean to put that in there. But the point is that the creators of the New Testament often worked in isolation. They did not agree with each other on myth or theology.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
those "other sources" you mentioned are the Q document(s) or christian oral tradition. I do not see what the New Testament not being written in cohorts has to do with the argument of why Christians would invent something that destroys Jesus' messiahship. The messiahship of Jesus is the most imporant theology in the New Testament. Christians would want proofs for him, they would not purposely manufacture falsehood for what is the central tenet of christianity.
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
I'm not saying they did. The writers of the Gospels found scripture and made it "fit." Remember, Matthew knew very little of Judaism. Luke know more, but he was writing for Jewish Christians and non-Jewish Christians, not for Jew. They believed what they wrote, but what they believed did not match up with reality or with each other. Also, any scholar who believes that Luke was written before Mark would have a difficult time making a case. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
"No I never said the virgin birth story is too complicated not to be true."
Sure you did. Your comment is just a few places above this one. See, e.g., the part where you talk about the "gospels had to invent rather convoluted means to get Jesus born in Bethlehem."
"Could you please actually deal with the arguments put forth?"
You haven't put forth any arguments. You've asserted a few things. As I noted, you have no arguments because this is a tenet of your faith.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Even Tim Callahan (king of skeptic authors) accepts the Galilee/Bethelhem argument I just posted here. And talking with you is arguing with a wall! ta ta!
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
You're just upset because I see through the bullshit, Koroigetsuga.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I'm not so sure. As I said, Paul never mentions it. Mark, the oldest of the four Gospels doesn't mention it either. Father Raymond Brown, in his study of the Matthiew and Lucian birth narratives (The Birth of the Messiah) notes that the two are historically unreliable. (He believed in the virgin birth only because of "faith.") Mark is believed to have been written at least 35 years after the death of Jesus. If Paul and Mark didn't know, I doubt if the Jewish Christians did.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Paul completely contradicted everything Jesus, Peter and James ever said so he is not reliable on anything. Both Mathew and Mark are debated as the first Gospel. Again title adoption does not exist in Judaism and Islam. If you are born in the tribe of Dan, but raised by a Levite, you still can never be a levite, you will be a Dannite all your life. To be messiah you need a pure patrilineal line to David/Solomon. The virgin birth destroys that because Joseph is not his real father. Why do this?
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
There is no real debate between scholars about which is the first Gospel. I attended a Catholic University and have enough hours to have minored in religion if I cared to. Go to the library and pick up a few recent studies of the New Testament. Even the Pope accepts Mark as being written first.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I've had a strange education for an atheist, but I just love learning about religion.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
A more honest assessment would be that the majority of scholars stick with Markian priority. Even if Mark was written first, one could argue he omitted the virgin birth because we know he was portraying a VERY Jewish messiah. Furthermore Luke argues that he wrote his gospel because the others were filled with errors, and even Marcion felt Luke was the most reliable gospel and he was the first person to conseive a canon.....Regardless, why would christians invent such a problem for their messiah?
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
What problem did they create? Judaism does not expect a Messiah born of a virgin. The Jews were led into the Jewish uprising lead largely by a man they accepted as the Messiah who did not claim to be born of a virgin. Indeed, Jews of the second century thought Christian claims of a virgin birth to be ludicrous. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke emerged after Christians had been ejected from the Jewish places of worship.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
That's my point. the OT does not describe a virgin born messiah. In order to be the messiah you have to have a PURE patrilineal descent from Solomon/ David. This means your father has to have Davidic blood in order for you to be messiah. Since Jesus came from a virgin he cannot inherit messianc office because he does not have a pure patrilineal descent because he has no father. And being adopted by Joseph does not count because title cannot be given by adoption.
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
And you are right. Jesus was not born of a virgin, and the first Christians did not believe him to be born so.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
the Q document comes from the earliest testimonies (I think) of christian mythology. Luke and Mathew post-date Paul and Mark, but the Q data they contain is earlier than them.
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
The Q document contains only the saying of Jesus that are common to both Luke and Matthew.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Yup and both Mathew and Luke have the virgin birth. the commonality in both shows it comes from the Q document
As for the virgin birth being pagan mythology. this has been debunked. Its true that the whole symbolic eating of Jesus is purely pagan, but the virigin birth is unique to Jesus. No Mithra was born of a rock, not a virgin. No Krisha was conceived sexually, not a virgin. As are all the other fakes invented skeptic conspiracy theorists.
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
The virgin birth was common at that time. I again refer you to the work of the translator and scholar Raymond Brown, Its dates at least to the story of Sargon the Great at least 1900 hundred years before Jesus.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Furthermore, the Q document may well post-date Mark, and there is no proof that the virgin birth legend came Q. BTW, Sargon also the origin of the Moses being found in the river legend.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
The similarities between Sargon and Moses are dubious. google the article "Was the story of Moses stolen from that of the Assyrian king Sargon?"....How was the virgin birth common at the time? Please do not repeat the common lies fabricated by skeptic conspiracy theories of Romulas, or Perseus, or dionysus, or Horus being born virgins. These have been debunked. all of them were born sexually.
koroigetsuga 2 years ago
I'm not an apologist or anything, and I know there are many discrepancies in Scripture. However, some scholars think the end of Romans 1 is a set up for Romans 2, which starts off by saying "Who are you to judge!" In this view, it's a literary device meant to put the reader/hearer in the position of one judging, and then slams the point home - "Who are you to judge, when you do the same things!" James McGrath is one of the ones I've read who thought this was the case.
kidwhocracked 2 years ago
I happen to think that's a correct take on one of the functions of Romans 1. However, it *also* functions to convey Paul's diagnosis of the human condition, i.e., people were not ignorant of God, but rather they knew God and turned their back on him.
ProfMTH 2 years ago