Atheism's Twentieth Century Death Toll

[McCulloch]

You really want to play that numbers game, with atheism's 100,000,000 death toll last century?

Are there 100,000,000 deaths in the twentieth century attributable to atheism? Please list.

[East of Eden]

Here's another perfectly plausible explanation for Paul not mentioning the virgin birth: he'd never heard of it.

Provide evidence for the claim that the doctrine of the virgin birth was believed from the earliest days of the church or retract it.

Already been done on this thread:

"Very important in the history of the early church's belief in the virgin birth is the testimony of its early fathers. In 110 AD, Ignatius wrote in his Epistle to the Ephesians, "For our GOD Jesus Christ was...conceived in the womb of Mary...by the Holy Ghost."

"Now the virginity of Mary, and He who was born of her...are the mysteries most spoken of throughout the world, yet done in secret by GOD." Ignatius received his information from his teacher, John the apostle.

"We have further evidence," writes Clement F. Rogers, "which shows that the belief of Christians in the Virgin Birth was attacked by those outside. Cerinthus, for example, was the contemporary and opponent of St. John. It was said that the Evangelist, meeting him in the public baths, cried out, 'Let us flee lest the bath fall in while Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is here." He [Cerinthus' taught, Irenaeus tells us, that our LORD was born of Joseph and Mary like other men."

Another of the post-apostolic writers, Aristides in 125 AD, speaks of the virgin birth: "He is Himself Son of GOD on high, who was manifested of the Holy Spirit, came down from heaven, and being born of a Hebrew virgin took on His flesh from the virgin...He it is who was according to the flesh born of the race of Hebrews, by the GOD-bearing virgin Miriam."

Justin Martyr in 150 gives ample evidence to the concept of Jesus' miraculous birth. "...Our Teacher Jesus Christ, who is the first-begotten of GOD the Father, was not born as a result of sexual relations...the power of GOD descending upon the virgin overshadowed her, and caused her, while still a virgin, to conceive...For, by GOD's power He was conceived by a virgin...in accordance with the will of GOD, Jesus Christ, His Son, has been born of the Virgin Mary." (Apology 1:21-33; Dialogue with Trypho the Jew)

"The first great Latin-speaking Christian was the converted lawyer Tertullian. He tells us that not only there was in his days (ca AD 200) a definite Christian creed on which all churches agree, but he also tells us, its technical name was a tessera. Now things only get technical names when they have been established for some time. He quotes this creed four times. It includes the words 'ex virgine Maria' (of the Virgin Mary)."

Josh McDowell

How would John know about the Virgin Birth, but not Paul who died decades before John?

The very fact the Gospels were written before 70 AD makes your question somewhat bizarre.

I asked for evidence that it was believed from the earliest days of the church. Do you have any? None of the evidence you present here is even from the first few decades of the church, let alone the "earliest days."

Please withdraw your claim if you cannot provide evidence for it.

Already been done, the problem seems to be your acknowledging evidence. The first and second centuries of the Church ARE the earliest days. When do you think the Gospels were written?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Already been done, the problem seems to be your acknowledging evidence. The first and second centuries of the Church ARE the earliest days. When do you think the Gospels were written?

Several decades after the death of Jesus. I think you need to clarify your claim: when you say "the earliest days of the church", what year are you referring to?

If you will modify your claim to this, I would concede it:

"The virgin birth was believed from around 70 CE."

Please either clarify or withdraw your claim if you cannot provide evidence for it.

[East of Eden]

Already been done, the problem seems to be your acknowledging evidence. The first and second centuries of the Church ARE the earliest days. When do you think the Gospels were written?

Several decades after the death of Jesus. I think you need to clarify your claim: when you say "the earliest days of the church", what year are you referring to?

This, as defined by Wikipedia:

"Early Christianity is generally considered as Christianity after the ascension of Jesus around the year 30 and before the First Council of Nicaea in 325."

I have given you sources well lbefore 325 AD.

If you will modify your claim to this, I would concede it:

"The virgin birth was believed from around 70 CE."

Please either clarify or withdraw your claim if you cannot provide evidence for it.

Sorry, I will not retract, and have provided evidence the early church believed in the Virgin Birth. Do you have any evidence the early church did NOT believe in that doctrine prior to 70 AD?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Already been done, the problem seems to be your acknowledging evidence. The first and second centuries of the Church ARE the earliest days. When do you think the Gospels were written?

Several decades after the death of Jesus. I think you need to clarify your claim: when you say "the earliest days of the church", what year are you referring to?

This, as defined by Wikipedia:

"Early Christianity is generally considered as Christianity after the ascension of Jesus around the year 30 and before the First Council of Nicaea in 325."

I have given you sources well lbefore 325 AD.

If you will modify your claim to this, I would concede it:

"The virgin birth was believed from around 70 CE."

Please either clarify or withdraw your claim if you cannot provide evidence for it.

Sorry, I will not retract, and have provided evidence the early church believed in the Virgin Birth.

Your original claim was that the doctrine was believed from the earliest days of the church (ie 30 CE), not that it was believed by the early church (which could be anywhere from 30 - 325).

You have provided evidence that the virgin birth was believed by the early church at some point between 30 - 325. You have not provided evidence that the doctrine was believed "from the earliest days" of the church. Do you withdraw your original claim?

Do you have any evidence the early church did NOT believe in that doctrine prior to 70 AD?

Do you have any evidence that they did? This is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

[East of Eden]

Already been done, the problem seems to be your acknowledging evidence. The first and second centuries of the Church ARE the earliest days. When do you think the Gospels were written?

Several decades after the death of Jesus. I think you need to clarify your claim: when you say "the earliest days of the church", what year are you referring to?

This, as defined by Wikipedia:

"Early Christianity is generally considered as Christianity after the ascension of Jesus around the year 30 and before the First Council of Nicaea in 325."

I have given you sources well lbefore 325 AD.

If you will modify your claim to this, I would concede it:

"The virgin birth was believed from around 70 CE."

Please either clarify or withdraw your claim if you cannot provide evidence for it.

Sorry, I will not retract, and have provided evidence the early church believed in the Virgin Birth.

Your original claim was that the doctrine was believed from the earliest days of the church (ie 30 CE),

Cite where I said 30 AD or retract.

not that it was believed by the early church (which could be anywhere from 30 - 325).

Completey wrong, I said earliest days, and provided that evidence according to the Wikipedia definition.

You have provided evidence that the virgin birth was believed by the early church at some point between 30 - 325. You have not provided evidence that the doctrine was believed "from the earliest days" of the church. Do you withdraw your original claim?

Sorry, no.

Do you have any evidence that they did? This is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

No it isn't, you are the one implying some huge conspiracy, with no evidence to back it up.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Your original claim was that the doctrine was believed from the earliest days of the church (ie 30 CE),

Cite where I said 30 AD or retract.

I didn't say you said 30. I said you said the "earliest days of the church." The earliest days of the church are in 30. If you meant 70, not 30, when you said "the earliest days of the church" then you are fine.

not that it was believed by the early church (which could be anywhere from 30 - 325).

Completey wrong, I said earliest days, and provided that evidence according to the Wikipedia definition.

Just clarify your claim. When you say "earliest days", what year are you claiming?

Do you have any evidence that they did? This is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

No it isn't, you are the one implying some huge conspiracy, with no evidence to back it up.

Yes it is. When you make a claim, and then ask someone else to provide evidence that your claim is wrong, then you are committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

How in the world have I implied that there is "some huge conspiracy"? All I have done is point out that there is no evidence for the virgin birth from the earliest days of the church. The evidence only appears several decades after the church began. If several decades after the church began is what you mean by "from the earliest days" then clarify your claim and you're fine.

[East of Eden]

Your original claim was that the doctrine was believed from the earliest days of the church (ie 30 CE),

Cite where I said 30 AD or retract.

I didn't say you said 30.

Yes you did, you stated my claim then added 'i.e. 30'.

I said you said the "earliest days of the church." The earliest days of the church are in 30. If you meant 70, not 30, when you said "the earliest days of the church" then you are fine.

I mean earliest days, 30-325 AD as Wikipedia says.

Just clarify your claim. When you say "earliest days", what year are you claiming?

See the Wikipedia definition.

Yes it is. When you make a claim, and then ask someone else to provide evidence that your claim is wrong, then you are committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

How in the world have I implied that there is "some huge conspiracy"? All I have done is point out that there is no evidence for the virgin birth from the earliest days of the church. The evidence only appears several decades after the church began. If several decades after the church began is what you mean by "from the earliest days" then clarify your claim and you're fine.

Is it your position the Virgin Birth was not believed by the church from 30 AD to the time of the Gospel writings?

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

Is it your position the Virgin Birth was not believed by the church from 30 AD to the time of the Gospel writings?

Believed? Or written as advertising "God-stories" to attract converts to isolated and struggling Christian groups and presented as Gospels many decades after the alleged events. Remember they didn't have TV in those days. Stories such as the Virgin Birth and the Empty Tomb may have impressed the ignorant masses at that time, but today they are absurd to any rational person, and would be tossed out of court. Any "evidence" for these stories is second or third-hand hearsay at best. The same can be said for the alleged words of Jesus "quoted" in the Bible.

Christianity is based on the threat of hell to anyone who does not accept their alleged divine "Savior" stories. Without them, Christianity falls flat. It is said that the history of mankind is a register of atrocities and carefully constructed lies.

[East of Eden]

East of Eden wrote:

Is it your position the Virgin Birth was not believed by the church from 30 AD to the time of the Gospel writings?

Believed? Or written as advertising "God-stories" to attract converts to isolated and struggling Christian groups and presented as Gospels many decades after the alleged events. Remember they didn't have TV in those days. Stories such as the Virgin Birth and the Empty Tomb may have impressed the ignorant masses at that time, but today they are absurd to any rational person, and would be tossed out of court. Any "evidence" for these stories is second or third-hand hearsay at best. The same can be said for the alleged words of Jesus "quoted" in the Bible.

People don't normally knowingly die for a lie, as you seem to believe. Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one, in this case that a band of frightened followers were dramatically changed into a force nobody could stop because of the resurrection event. Human nature doesn't change, and although we have more gadgets, they were no more ignorant than we are. Thomas refused to believe until he felt the wounds.

Christianity is based on the threat of hell to anyone who does not accept their alleged divine "Savior" stories. Without them, Christianity falls flat.

Lots of belief systems allow for eternal rewards and punishments. Why is that?

It is said that the history of mankind is a register of atrocities and carefully constructed lies.

Hence the need for a savior.

Are all belief systems based on carefully constructed lies, or does your get a pass?

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

Lots of belief systems allow for eternal rewards and punishments. Why is that?

Because clever propagandists have always been aware that greed and fear are strong motivators of the masses.