Are there any contemporary Christians who believe that the historicity of Jesus’ virginal conception can be proved by historical methods?
To illustrate what I mean, it is a pretty standard claim among Christian apologists that the historicity of the *resurrection* can be proved by historical methods applied to the evidence (or at least made more probable than not in light of that evidence).
Does any Christian claim that the same is true of the virginal conception? I do not see any apologist making such a claim. But I might have missed someone.
Stephen said
Poor Sean. He forgot John 6: 42.They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
Except that is “the Jews” speaking, and asking as a question, not an authoritative source and not John himself. I doubt that would give Sean any pause.
JAS said
Stephen said
Poor Sean. He forgot John 6: 42.
They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
Except that is “the Jews” speaking, and asking as a question, not an authoritative source and not John himself. I doubt that would give Sean any pause.
Weeell…
At another time, Jesus’ opponents threw a barb at him when they retorted, “We were not born out of wedlock!” ( John 8:41). The insult and the reference to Jesus as the “son of Mary” and “born out of wedlock” indicate that it was common knowledge in Jesus’ hometown that he had been conceived before Mary’s wedding to Joseph—and without his aid. In other words, it seems very likely that the circumstances of Jesus’ miraculous birth to a virgin caused him to be labeled as an illegitimate child.
In John 6:42 Jesus’ enemies are questioning his claims to divinity precisely because it was common knowledge that Joseph was his father. Whoops. Sean also seems unaware that Jesus’ mother is never called by name in the gospel of John.
JAS said
jakejones said
Quote: Except that is “the Jews”speaking
.
why would they ask that question? as if they know that jesus has a daddy
Because that was presumably their assumption.
The whoops is because McDowell’s point is that
it was common knowledge in Jesus’ hometown that he had been conceived before Mary’s wedding to Joseph—and without his aid. In other words, it seems very likely that the circumstances of Jesus’ miraculous birth to a virgin caused him to be labeled as an illegitimate child.
So was it “common knowledge” that Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father or not? McDowell does what Prof Ehrman has pointed out what all fundamentalists do. Smash all the gospel accounts together into one big account, creating their own gospel. This allows them to elide all the narrative discrepancies, not only between the gospels but within them. But for fundamentalists there are no discrepancies. This is why the moment one of these folks discovers that there are is so flabbergasting. Such a one was your humble correspondent.
It was apparently not the “common knowledge” or position of those particular Jews who John is “quoting,” assuming that he is doing so accurately. It is a point of no great value unless you would be prepared to accept a statement by them that Mary had given birth to Jesus without a biological father. There is also a difference between what people know, what they may think, and what they may say, particularly for specific instances and with the purpose of making a specific point. You are smarter than this disingenuous parsing, and I am in no way a fan of Sean McDowell (nor his father). I would also not necessarily endorse his claims that Jesus’s biological origins were “common knowledge.”
Thanks for your contributions, everyone! That Sean McDowell page seems to be an example of an apologist shoring up the faith of other believers, which is well within the scope of what I originally requested.
Now, let me change my request a bit. Are there any examples of apologists using the virgin birth as a way to demonstrate that Christianity is true, when arguing against skeptics? I would be very surprised to find such examples; this is unlike Jesus’ resurrection, which is nowadays the standard “proof” that Christianity is true, advanced by the biggest names in Christian apologetics.
JAS said
Stephen said
Heaven forfend that I should willfully engage in disingenuous parsing. I do hereby repent in sackcloth and ashes.
And in further penance, you have to go back and read the last 200 posts by Steefen.
I always read Steefen’s posts.
Omar6741 said
Thanks for your contributions, everyone! That Sean McDowell page seems to be an example of an apologist shoring up the faith of other believers, which is well within the scope of what I originally requested.Now, let me change my request a bit. Are there any examples of apologists using the virgin birth as a way to demonstrate that Christianity is true, when arguing against skeptics? I would be very surprised to find such examples; this is unlike Jesus’ resurrection, which is nowadays the standard “proof” that Christianity is true, advanced by the biggest names in Christian apologetics.
Sorry the thread definitely drifted didn’t it? I’m not familiar with a specific apologist but if you haven’t already done so, type ‘virgin birth’ in the YouTube search field and I am confident you will be deluged.
My favorite YouTube apologist is ** you do not have permission to see this link **. I find his stuff totally entertaining. Mainly because we live in different universes. White is a absolutely sincere hermetically sealed pure religious fanatic. He has spent thirty years meticulously tying off every loose thread. He has an answer for everything. The binary is bracing. Either he is completely delusional or I am! Watch him and you’ll see what I mean. I am free from the accusation of complete delusion because I can accept the possibility that I might be at least partly delusional. But White can’t do that. He is forced by the logic of his position to be right every time. He must be or all crumbles. Consequently White is the hardcorest of the hardcore. (His political opinions won’t surprise anyone. His best stuff is when he critiques his fellow believers on their lack of intellectual rigor in parsing the scriptures.) I’m sure he has addressed the virgin birth at some point.
Stephen said
I always read Steefen’s posts.
I can usually only make it part way through a few of them. And by the time I have sufficiently recovered to try to finish, he has posted a dozen or more screeds of equal or greater length. Perhaps a bit of his tirades against basic rational discourse has rubbed off on you . . . just a bit.
I can usually only make it part way through a few of them. And by the time I have sufficiently recovered to try to finish, he has posted a dozen or more screeds of equal or greater length. Perhaps a bit of his tirades against basic rational discourse has rubbed off on you . . . just a bit.
Only someone who disagrees with us can teach us anything. To surround ourselves with people who reinforce our beliefs is blinding. This is counter-intuitive and just the opposite of what we’ve come to expect in this media drenched civilization. See the YouTube algorithm for example. It’s predicated on the assumption that we want more of the same. Wrong. I deliberately seek out alternative opinions. Very little of our discourse is rational. The rational person is the one who recognizes how irrational they are.
But all too often, what people who have extremely different views seem to show us is that they are poorly informed, or may even be insane. (I offer, as one example, QANON). It may generally be worth giving alternate views due consideration, but not all alternate views have value to offer. Most of the algorithms, unfortunately, emphasize the crazy stuff and the valueless click bait. There is a very good youtube presentation on “There is no algorithm for truth.”
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert