| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| What would you do if they disproved the virgin birth?; ... would it change your mind? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 27 2010, 12:26 PM (573 Views) | |
| kenny | Apr 27 2010, 12:26 PM Post #1 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I've heard claims over the years (including a recent one) that this or that team has found evidence that the virgin birth may have not occured. Honestly, I'm just curious...if scientists conclusively find there could have been no virgin birth, would it change any of your beliefs, specifially regarding the Bible? And yes I'm expecting copycat threads and snarky answers, it's ok. Just curious! |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Apr 27 2010, 12:28 PM Post #2 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
No, it would not. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Quagmire | Apr 27 2010, 12:41 PM Post #3 |
|
Senior Carp
|
scientists have already found that, conclusively. Thats why its considered a miracle. |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 27 2010, 12:43 PM Post #4 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Not really. While I believe that the virgin birth occurred, my faith in Jesus as the physical incarnation of God truly doesn't depend on that. I believe that it was a supernatural event, and that God could have accomplished the union with humanity the way God did in Jesus of Nazareth, in any way of God's choosing. That could have included "fusing" with a human being conceived in the usual manner. Same thing with all the dustup over whether Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. i don't think he was, but if someone dug up their marriage certificate, it wouldn't change my understanding of Jesus, or who he is. Just like with the ark thread, though, archaeology really cant "prove" that the boat found in Turkey is Noah's ark, and it really can't "prove" the details of Jesus' conception. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Apr 27 2010, 01:38 PM Post #5 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
I don't see the problem. I was born a virgin. Wasn't everybody? |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Apr 27 2010, 01:41 PM Post #6 |
|
MAMIL
|
We can't even agree on the details of that other great Messiah's birth - what chance has JC got? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Apr 27 2010, 02:27 PM Post #7 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Dewey, In your view, can one be a good Christian and NOT accept many of the 'stories' in the bible? The virgin birth is something that I have always regarded .... lets see, how to put this diplomatically .... with a certain amount of skepticism. I'm just not 'miracle oriented.' I understand miracles in the context of 'proof' to premodern minds. But my understanding of Christianity does not at all rely on the standards of evidence considered important to people 2000 years ago. |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Apr 27 2010, 02:28 PM Post #8 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
How convenient. If they are going to look for Noah's Ark why not virgin birth evidence, or walking on water evidence? Who decides which were real and which were miracles? On second thought, never mind. This was just a spoof of 89's thread which was a spoof of another. |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | Apr 27 2010, 02:30 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
How do you prove or disprove something where the only evidence was eye witness accounts from 2000 years ago. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Apr 27 2010, 02:32 PM Post #10 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
They do, all the time. People all over the world scour the earth for Jesus' remains. Some guy claims to have actually found them twice a decade or so. People attempt to look into biblical stories to prove or disprove them all the time. And it's fairly pointless because any conclusions made always rely on a great deal of inference and never change people's minds. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | Apr 27 2010, 02:34 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
If you believe in God, is it so unbelieveable to think that God was capable of something that we ourselves are capable of today? |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| sue | Apr 27 2010, 04:09 PM Post #12 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
eh? Are you saying we're doing the virgin birth thing nowadays? |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | Apr 27 2010, 04:11 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
We could. I would be surprised if somebody hasn't already done it for some weird cult. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 27 2010, 04:22 PM Post #14 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
It's a very good question, PD. I think that depends on how you might define "good" Christian. The virgin birth is attested to in the gospel accounts of Jesus, and that definitely isn't to be taken lightly. There was obviously something behind these accounts, and the writers were far closer to the events in question than we are. It's important to remember that there was really no need to make such a seemingly far-fetched claim in order to defend Jesus of Nazareth as the messiah. Jewish understanding of the messiah was never that he was going to have some divine "parentage," or that he would be divine himself. Even in comparing the account of Jesus' miraculous conception to Isaiah 7:14 (and even momentarily suspending the Greek/Hebrew dispute over the passage), the Christians were appealing to a passage that the Jews never saw as a prophesy related to the messiah. The Christians' argument was basically, "Yes, we know that we never saw this passage in that way. But given Jesus' miraculous conception, now we can look back at Isaiah's words and see it on a whole different level, and that it really is also a messianic prophecy." In other words, the whole argument is an uphill battle - obviously, we're still discussing it today. Why create the whole issue if it weren't true, and if it didn't *need* to be true in order for Jesus to be the messiah? I'm very much in LD's court on the issue. I believe in the virgin birth, because I believe that God is the creator of the cosmos, and all life, from nothing - ex nihilo. And if God is capable of that (in whatever way one chooses to believe it was accomplished), then God is certainly capable of causing a young virgin to conceive a child without having a human father. The God who is capable of creating the cosmos and setting it all in its proper place, is also capable of creating a single sperm cell and setting it in its proper place. In short, I have no difficulty with the virgin birth account - and with other miracle accounts - specifically because of my understanding of God's very nature. And it is for these reasons that belief in the virgin birth has been included in our basic creedal statements like the Nicene Cred and the Apostles' Creed. And if you don't believe in the virgin birth, you don't believe in these creedal statements, which have come to be the baseline for "orthodox" Christian belief. So if you don't believe in the virgin birth, you can't really say that you are an "orthodox" Christian - and if that's your definition of "good" Christian, then the answer to your initial question would seem to be no. But I honestly don't know if the answer is that clear-cut. Even as convinced as I am that the virgin birth occurred, I've already indicated that it wouldn't affect my faith at all if somehow, it were proven not to have been the case. My belief is that Jesus is the messiah, God's chosen; God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity enfleshed in human life. I believe that that occurred through God's supernatural action, and that it was not necessitated on some literal kind of sexual encounter between God and Mary. In other words, my faith is based on who I believe Jesus Christ to be, and that faith is based on many things - and one of the least of those is the nature of his physical conception. Many people will argue that the imagery of a divinity conceiving a child with a human female is a recurring theme in ancient literature and religion, intended to give special status to a person - usually, a king - and they'll say that the gospel writers simply borrowed this form to give greater credibility to Jesus and to allude to his heavenly kingship. It's most certainly true that the divine/human conception is an often-seen form (although it is usually more graphic and physical an encounter than the quite vague description of Mary's conception). Even within the Bible itself, the idea of an unusual birth is a portent that the child is going to be a special person in God's plans (look at how many times a child is born to a mother who was barren, and who miraculously gave birth to a son - it shows up over and over again). But I actually argue in the opposite direction: I don't think that the gospel writers simply pasted the idea of divine conception onto Jesus; rather, I since the culture of the time understood that to be a sign from God that made the child "special," that God used a sign that they readily understood to point to Jesus' special nature. I've met a number of people who believed very strongly that Jesus is the incarnation of God, that he is fully human and fully divine, and that his atoning actions are what has enabled our reconciliation with God, and that his very nature is supernatural - but who don't believe that Jesus' conception was supernatural at all. So does that one thing negate their faith in Christ - does it mean they aren't a "good" Christian? I'm not really convinced of that. I'm pretty confident that while Jesus was teaching on earth, and even in the earliest days of the faith, there were many who came to believe in him, having never heard any accounts of his birth - and, if they subsequently heard those accounts, may very well have rejected them (or at least considered them secondary to the real matter of belief that Jesus is the savior). Does that make those first believers, who didn't have the Nicene or Apostles' Creeds to profess, "bad" Christians? I don't imagine so. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Jesus Christ | Apr 27 2010, 04:25 PM Post #15 |
|
Member
|
I would apologize to Joseph for not getting him father's day cards all these years. |
![]() |
|
| Beacon Chris | Apr 27 2010, 04:33 PM Post #16 |
|
Junior Carp
|
Yea, Kenny, I heard that too... Something about a blue dress, the definition of is, hmm... maybe I'm confusing this with something else. Oh well (FYI, said a quick prayer to apologize to God before I wrote this )
|
| How you durrin? | |
![]() |
|
| The Dark Lord Sauron | Apr 27 2010, 04:40 PM Post #17 |
|
Newbie
|
Silence, whelp. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 27 2010, 04:43 PM Post #18 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Actually, Kenny, the more powerful question is whether a Christian would change his mind if Jesus' corpse has been found. No more "risen from the dead," no more "second coming," god/son/holy-spirit "just died." That gets closer to the core of Christian mythology. |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Apr 27 2010, 04:46 PM Post #19 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Nah, they'll just say the body remaining after ascending was another miracle. They got everything covered. To them science cannot pwn religion, it can only reinforce it. It only works one way. |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Apr 27 2010, 05:00 PM Post #20 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
I'd love to hear your explanation for jumping to those conclusions. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| apple | Apr 27 2010, 05:10 PM Post #21 |
|
one of the angels
|
i'm comfortable not being miracle oriented... my Jesuit influenced logic is firmly grounded in reality... |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 27 2010, 06:47 PM Post #22 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Something like that would cause the Christian faith to rethink the details of its faith, but not the underlying issue of the faith itself. His resurrection is not seen as the way in which Christ enabled reconciliation between humans and God. That occurred entirely through his death. The resurrection is seen as God's validation that what Jesus taught was accurate. Christ's act of making it possible for us to be at one with God happened at the cross, and would remain the case even if God chose not to offer us validation by resurrecting Jesus. If Jesus' physical body were found, it would most likely cause Christians to say that Jesus' physical "resurrection body" was not the same body that he had during his physical life - which, incidentally, is precisely the Christian belief for all the rest of us. the physical bodies that we will receive in the afterlife will be based on, and similar to, our current bodies, but will not be exactly the same. So in fact, having Jesus' corpse would in no way eliminate beliefs regarding his divine/human nature or his future return, any more than finding a chrysalis would disprove the existence of the butterfly that had emerged from it. We Christians believe that Jesus' resurrection and ascension occurred in one manner. But there isn't anything inherently faith-shattering if we were to learn that the same thing occurred, just in a slightly different way. Regardless of the details, something sufficiently game-changing occurred in the lives of Jesus' followers to transform them practically overnight from a crushed, demoralized group of people who had, in the best of instances, scattered and hid from the authorities out of fear for having been affiliated with Jesus; and in the worst of instances, flatly and publicly denied having even known the man, much less believed that he was the messiah. Something happened to change them from that to become intensely energized, emboldened disciples committed to quite publicly spreading the good news of Christ's message to the world - in the very streets that Jesus carried his cross through, and which the disciples themselves stayed out of for fear of arrest and execution, just days before. Something happened to cause them to boldly tell the most amazing story imaginable about a man being resurrected. And something happened to cause many people to come to believe that what these people were saying was really true. That in itself may be the most significant miracle that God worked at the time of Jesus' death and resurrection. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | Apr 27 2010, 07:18 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
That's the best description I 've read about that time, Dewey. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Apr 28 2010, 03:25 AM Post #24 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
For many people, I think this is true, and it's one reason why the 'dialogue' between faith and science often is so tortured and/or sterile. But in fairness, cherry picking evidence is not the sole preserve of faith and faith defenders. This is the core problem with just about any strong dogma that motivates people. I first became aware of it many years ago when I encountered Marxism for the first time. There was a faith every bit as strong as religion, and equally (if not more so) impervious to all evidence. The squishy concepts simply morphed to accommodate any negative finding of fact. As I'm sure many of our more right-leaning friends here would gleefully point out, many environmentalists seem equally capable of twisting evidence to fit a belief system. |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 28 2010, 03:33 AM Post #25 |
|
Cheers
|
You say that as if you aren't one of our right-leaning friends gleefully pointing it out. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








)

12:59 AM Jul 11