New Testament scholarship

Cypress said:
A virgin birth is truly extraordinary, truly unprecedented, and it is legitimate to ask why only two authors briefly mention it, why it never comes up in the earliest Christian writings, and why Paul, Mark, John, Peter seem unaware of it.
Click to expand...
seems to atheists to be unaware of it.........

did you just tear the page with Galatians 4:4 out of your Bible and throw it away? Not to mention the entire gospel of John.........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
seems to atheists to be unaware of it.........

did you just tear the page with Galatians 4:4 out of your Bible and throw it away? Not to mention the entire gospel of John.........
Click to expand...
Galatians 4:4 does not say Jesus was the result of a miraculous virgin birth.

Since you cannot now be trusted to provide accurate citations, I'm not going to expend any more energy checking them
 
Daylight63 said:
Why does divinity have to be established by VIRGIN birth?
Click to expand...
^ A common sense question

It doesn't. An all powerful God could enter human form anyway he wants

A miraculous virgin birth is only minimally attested to in the literary evidence, and does not pass the historian's criteria of multiple attestation
 
Cypress said:
Galatians 4:4 does not say Jesus was the result of a miraculous virgin birth.
Click to expand...
so you think Paul said Jesus was the Son of God because he thought Joseph was God?.....and I don't give a fuck if you refuse to look at my references......people who are busy ignoring fact do that all the time........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so you think Paul said Jesus was the Son of God because he thought Joseph was God?.....and I don't give a fuck if you refuse to look at my references......people who are busy ignoring fact do that all the time........
Click to expand...
I did go to the effort to look at your reference. Your Galatians reference says nothing about a miraculous virgin birth. It says Jesus was born of woman sent by God. An all powerful God can enter human form anyway he wants, it doesn't require virginity

I see no reason to go on anymore wild goose chases to look at your citations.
 
Hume said:
Is there anything credible about the story of Jesus.
Beyond he said stuff.
Click to expand...
Considering his modest background, he is probably the most well attested and well known peasant in ancient history.

In addition to the outlined facts in the OP, we have historically reliable data about where he was from, about his parents, about his siblings, about his education and his literacy, and that he had a public ministry
 
Cypress said:
I did go to the effort to look at your reference. Your Galatians reference says nothing about a miraculous virgin birth. It says Jesus was born of woman sent by God. An all powerful God can enter human form anyway he wants, it doesn't require virginity
Click to expand...
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.
Click to expand...

these arguments would be more interesting if you answered questions without lying......the question isn't whether God had to use virgin birth........the question is whether he DID and whether Paul and the disciples acknowledge it.......stop denying the facts........
 
Cypress said:
A virgin birth is truly extraordinary, totally unprecedented, and it is legitimate to ask why only two authors briefly mention it - why it never comes up in the earliest Christian writings - and why Paul, Mark, John, Peter seem unaware of it. That just seems like common sense to question the minimalist nature of the literary attestations.

The simplest explanation to me is that the Virgin birth is a later legendary account added to the corpus.

It requires more fancy dancing to explain why Paul, Mark, John, Peter, James just decided to ignore mentioning such an extraordinary and unprecedented event
Click to expand...
How many times does it need to stated for it to satisfy whatever standard you think you have established regarding this matter? If it's said only once the it's not true but if it's stated a 1000 times it is.
I hear this nonsense from Protestants all the time about the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. They whine that Jesus only mentions it Johns gospel. Same with infant baptism. It's a very bad argument.
 
Yakuda said:
How many times does it need to stated for it to satisfy whatever standard you think you have established regarding this matter? If it's said only once the it's not true but if it's stated a 1000 times it is.
I hear this nonsense from Protestants all the time about the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. They whine that Jesus only mentions it Johns gospel. Same with infant baptism. It's a very bad argument.
Click to expand...
One brief mention is enough for a devout religious person.

The scholar or the armchair historian seeks confirmation by established methodologies of literary criticism, like the criteria of multiple attestation, the criteria of dissimilarity, the criteria of contextual credibility.
 
Cypress said:
One brief mention is enough for a devout religious person.

The scholar or the armchair historian seeks confirmation by established methodologies of literary criticism, like the criteria of multiple attestation, the criteria of dissimilarity, the criteria of contextual credibility.
Click to expand...
How many times must something be said for it to be true? Is a lie made true if it's repeated 1000 times? People have been claiming for 9 years that Trump is a fascist nazi dictator who is an existential threat to democracy. Now the people who repeatedly claimed that for 9 years appear not to actually believe it because they will do nothing to stop an existential threat to democracy from taking over control of the govt. Repeatedly hearing things from different sources doesn't necessarily make something true.
 
Cypress said:
One brief mention is enough for a devout religious person.

The scholar or the armchair historian seeks confirmation by established methodologies of literary criticism, like the criteria of multiple attestation, the criteria of dissimilarity, the criteria of contextual credibility.
Click to expand...
you're completely full of bullshit.

you miss the fundamental meaning of the gospel with your dipshittery and intentional stupidity.
 
Lao Tse said:
you're completely full of bullshit.

you miss the fundamental meaning of the gospel with your dipshittery and intentional stupidity.
Click to expand...
I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Just because I can talk about particle physics doesn't mean I can't appreciate art, truth, beauty, metaphysics and religious values.

Apart from my interests in history, I have actively sought out and read most of the seminal sacred texts of most of the major world religions. You certainly can't say that.
 
Cypress said:
That was my question, and it was the absolute core of my discussion with Phan and others.

I'm not interested in you trying to change the question to a formula you prefer.
Click to expand...
oh fuck off.....I answered the question I quoted you asking......not my fault you don't like accurate and honest answers......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top