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.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Ok, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Now can you please provide evidence for your claim that the virgin birth was known from the start of Jesus' ministry (~ 30 CE)? If not, please withdraw your claim.

Already been done, see Matthew and Luke.

Matthew and Luke were not written in 30 CE. They are evidence that the virgin birth was believed at the time they were written, some 40 to 50 years after the time period you are making claims about.

Do you have evidence for your claim that the virgin birth was known from the start of Jesus' ministry (~ 30 CE)? If not, please withdraw your claim.

All writing of events is happens after the events take place. The mere fact that someone wrote something down (be they a Caesar or a gospel author) does not make it true.

True of what you write here also.

Indeed.

We don' know that what Caesar wrote is true simply because he wrote it. The same applies to the gospels and any other document.

So you don't believe Caesar's history, or is there the familiar double standard going on here?

I believe Caesar's history to the extent that we can independently confirm the claims that it makes. Same with the gospels. No double standard at all.

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

As to the earlier claim made by someone that Paul did not mention the Virgin Birth, the link points out out that Paul's theme was not the life of Christ, that was documented in the Gospels.

Yes, but the Gospels came at least several decades AFTER the writings of Paul, yet Paul's writings are a major part of the New Testament. Are you saying that such a miraculous event of Jesus' life was well-known to Paul, but it never occurred to him to mention it? That stretches belief in human nature, but fits well with my opinion that Paul was more interested in imposing his own personal beliefs on the new church, conveniently disguising them as the teaching of Jesus. (Please note that I said "my opinion.")

[S.T. Ranger]

Ok, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Now can you please provide evidence for your claim that the virgin birth was known from the start of Jesus' ministry (~ 30 CE)? If not, please withdraw your claim.

Already been done, see Matthew and Luke.

Matthew and Luke were not written in 30 CE. They are evidence that the virgin birth was believed at the time they were written, some 40 to 50 years after the time period you are making claims about.

Do you have evidence for your claim that the virgin birth was known from the start of Jesus' ministry (~ 30 CE)? If not, please withdraw your claim.

So the fact that Matthew and Luke were written years after does make the accounts incredible?

God bless.

[East of Eden]

East of Eden wrote:

As to the earlier claim made by someone that Paul did not mention the Virgin Birth, the link points out out that Paul's theme was not the life of Christ, that was documented in the Gospels.

Yes, but the Gospels came at least several decades AFTER the writings of Paul, yet Paul's writings are a major part of the New Testament. Are you saying that such a miraculous event of Jesus' life was well-known to Paul, but it never occurred to him to mention it?

Paul's writings were not about the life of Christ, the Gospels were.

If Paul did mention the Virgin Birth, would you believe it?

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

If Paul did mention the Virgin Birth, would you believe it?

No, but I would believe that it was a Christian belief before the Gospels were written.

[S.T. Ranger]

East of Eden wrote:

If Paul did mention the Virgin Birth, would you believe it?

No, but I would believe that it was a Christian belief before the Gospels were written.

What is the significance...



Galatians 4:4

King James Version (KJV)

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,


Of a Jew being sent forth, made of a woman, and made under the Law?

God bless.

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

If Paul did mention the Virgin Birth, would you believe it?

No, but I would believe that it was a Christian belief before the Gospels were written.

What is the significance...



Galatians 4:4

King James Version (KJV)

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,


Of a Jew being sent forth, made of a woman, and made under the Law?

God bless.

I don't believe anyone here is disputing that Jesus was born, and that his mother was a woman. The question is, was she a VIRGIN?

[Goat]

I don't get the entire virgin birth issue. If that was important, why in the childhood stories does Maria run around with Joseph. If the stories wanted to convey a virgin birth, they should have had her run around on her own in that story.

That is only one of the reasons that the story sounds at least a little immoral to me. God or no God, Mary was ENGAGED to Joseph at the time God took advantage of her innocence.

And since Mary was only about 13 at the time, that makes God a pedophile.

Only in the modern concept. Back then, girls married earlier, probably right after puberty, and it was considered 'normal'. They were ignorant about the medical issues that could happen if a girl was not fully mature at their first pregnancy, and people in general did not live as long, so early birth/early death' was much more the norm. I don't think that is a valid argument at all..

Are you saying that god was unaware at the time? I know what you are saying, but it looks funny my way.

Not at all. I am saying that marriage and sex at that time frame was part of the normal society, so the term 'pedophile' was not valid for that activity. For that matter, if a woman has had her period, the term in modern times is not pedophile, but rather hebephile. Just being accurate.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Matthew and Luke were not written in 30 CE. They are evidence that the virgin birth was believed at the time they were written, some 40 to 50 years after the time period you are making claims about.

Do you have evidence for your claim that the virgin birth was known from the start of Jesus' ministry (~ 30 CE)? If not, please withdraw your claim.

So the fact that Matthew and Luke were written years after does make the accounts incredible?

No. The accounts might be credible. They might not be credible. Without evidence to confirm one way or the other, we don't know.

[S.T. Ranger]

East of Eden wrote:

If Paul did mention the Virgin Birth, would you believe it?

No, but I would believe that it was a Christian belief before the Gospels were written.

What is the significance...



Galatians 4:4

King James Version (KJV)

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,


Of a Jew being sent forth, made of a woman, and made under the Law?

God bless.

I don't believe anyone here is disputing that Jesus was born, and that his mother was a woman. The question is, was she a VIRGIN?

The question was...

If Paul did mention the Virgin Birth, would you believe it?

No, but I would believe that it was a Christian belief before the Gospels were written.

The question now is whether Paul distinguishes Christ as "made of a woman" meaning that He did not come forth from man and woman, as most of us do. Not only that but that He was sent forth from God, showing His pre-existence.


Galatians 4:4

King James Version (KJV)

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,


God bless.