Is the Bible mythology?

[izzy]

There is a view, especially among liberal theologians and scholars, that the supernatural events in the Bible did not literally occur. According to this view, the only thing the Bible is good for is moral teaching. If there is a God, he does not intervene in nature or the affairs of man. Jesus was merely a teacher and not God incarnate. There is no resurrection and Jesus is not the only way to be reconciled with God. The virgin birth never occurred. All of these statements come out of the view that the events in the Bible are myth.

So what is the big problem with the view that the Bible is myth? I would say that it goes against the essentials of Christianity. From very early on, the church has held that Jesus is the promised Messiah of the Old Testament and the fulfillment of it, that he is fully God and fully man, that he is the only sacrifice capable of satisfying God’s righteous wrath, that he was born of a virgin, that he suffered and died, and that he rose to life again and appeared to witnesses, including the twelve (I probably missed a few things in that list, but you get the idea). The view that the Bible is myth would completely deny most of these things, and cannot therefore be traditional Christianity.

For instance, if the resurrection is a myth, then any faith in Christ is in vain. “But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men†(1 Corinthians 15:12-15, 19, NIV).

How do we know that the Bible is reliable? Sure, it plainly says that certain supernatural things occurred, but what evidence do we have that the Bible is a true documentation of history?

The study of the historicity and authenticity of the Scriptures is often referred to as historical criticism and I would encourage all Christians to dig into this field. A book that is often recommended is Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ.†There is a lot of evidence from history, archeology, and things within the Bible that demonstrate that this book was not made up by ignorant, superstitious, savages. What I would like to do in this thread is start up a conversation about the evidence for the authenticity of Scripture and the essentials of Christianity. Anyone have a specific topic or question they would like to start this thread with?

 

[cyberjosh]

I think you have hit on a good topic here, but let me be the first one to tell you that unless a man or woman is personally convinced by God Himself of the Scripture's truth, whether by hearing or reading, they will never be able (nor would want) to believe in the authority, accuracy, and authenticity of Scripture. I have been in the fray, so to speak, with those who doubt (some very sincere - not always hostile, and many very intelligent) and though we may put forth exemplary examples of Christ to them in our conduct, though we may give the most reasoned argument from a spiritually enlightened mind (from a truth that is not our own, but is God's), though we may even show ourselves intelligent, knowledgeable, and have good reasons behind our faith unbelievers cannot, and will not, acknowledge the truth of what we say if we testify of the Word of God to them (apart from God's working). Though it becomes a debate of ideology to them, those books and articles that offer edifying reinforcement and even proofs of Christianity and Judaism's tenants, and those peoples' historical experiences with the divine, and which enter into apologetics on their behalf, because of the lack of faith in the unbelieving reader, they cannot help but throw off the author as making irrelevant and "fallacious" arguments, with "unconvincing" proofs, and peddling a popular message to satisfy Christians and pander to a captive audience.

Such authors as Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell which have earned their place as Christian Apologists (perhaps McDowell more so than Strobel) immediately excite such a reaction among unbelievers. Try to tell a skeptic to read one of their books and you will get a sneer or off-handed dismissal. Some, though, have gone so far as to make a mini-book/article "refutation" of Josh McDowell's "Evidence which demands a verdict" with the almost spiteful title "Evidence which does not demand a verdict". And of course such authors will not be infallible, but I think the point is missed in the "tearing-apart" of certain arguments that skeptics attempt (and occasionally succeed if they are fair, and not overly zealous - an ironic trait for an unbeliever to have). I think that they truly believe that Christians' faith is shallow and that we need proof texts to prove the validity of our beliefs, our faith in a risen Lord, and our new life in God. They don't see that our faith and confidence comes from the inside, empowered by the Holy Spirit, and not from emotional comfort-seeking and external constructs and arguments. In fact, some of them think Christians are just dumb and gullible and are spoon fed a cheap grade of theology and apologetic material that poisons rational thought. Not all unbelievers are like that, but the reasonable ones are hard to come by (and sadly the same can be said of some Christians who only help reinforce this common perception of Christian [un]intelligence, lack of confidence, and insincerity or gullibility).

The best defense I have found for this is to do exactly as 1 Peter 3:15 says and be ready to give a defense to those who ask of you, and give it as sincerely and loving as you can, strong in the knowledge of the word of God, stating it with confidence - and yes, even making rational or intelligent conversation out of it. But it will not be us, or an apologist author, or a well-respected Christian scholar (yes, of course there are such scholars) which will convince them of the truth of God's word and their need for a Savior. It depends on the state of the heart of the recipient and the Holy Spirit who might give grace enough to them that the truth would ring as genuine in their ears, hearts, and minds. We can muster the most intelligent and intellectual of arguments with which to defend the faith, but we cannot convince anyone who has already made their mind up as to the (in)validity of the Scriptures.

Can they base their decision on legitimate questions, objections, and critical thinking? Sure, but they will be lacking the one fact which, without taking it into account, will lead them astray and to incorrect conclusions - and that is this: That there is a God in heaven who created man and woman and every living thing, who had mercy upon us enough to send his Son Jesus to die on the cross to atone for the sins of those who would believe on him, and raised Him up on high, and has given those who believe His Holy Spirit and an inspired Scripture to guide His people and lead them to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. This, we cannot convince someone of. God must reveal it to them. Let them say the Bible is mythology, let them say it is a document forged over time by multiple hands with different interests and biases, let them slander the Bible and question the justice of God's laws - but God has made one thing clear: "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap" (Galatians 6:7). Let them peddle their mythology theories before God when he requires from them something wholly other and different, and much more relevant and immediate, at the judgment seat - and that is for them to account for their deeds done in the flesh and whether they believed and obeyed the Son whom He sent. Cries of mythology will ring mighty hollow on that day in God's judgment chamber. May God have mercy on those that would hear.

Speaking the truth in love,

Josh

 

[izzy]

I think you have hit on a good topic here, but let me be the first one to tell you that unless a man or woman is personally convinced by God Himself of the Scripture's truth, whether by hearing or reading, they will never be able (nor would want) to believe in the authority, accuracy, and authenticity of Scripture. I have been in the fray, so to speak, with those who doubt (some very sincere - not always hostile, and many very intelligent) and though we may put forth exemplary examples of Christ to them in our conduct, though we may give the most reasoned argument from a spiritually enlightened mind (from a truth that is not our own, but is God's), though we may even show ourselves intelligent, knowledgeable, and have good reasons behind our faith unbelievers cannot, and will not, acknowledge the truth of what we say if we testify of the Word of God to them (apart from God's working). Though it becomes an debate of ideology to them, those books and articles that offer edifying reinforcement and even proofs of Christianity and Judaism's tenants, and those peoples' historical experiences with the divine, and which enter into apologetics on their behalf, because of the lack of faith in the unbelieving reader, they cannot help but throw off the author as making irrelevant and "fallacious" arguments, with "unconvincing" proofs, and peddling a popular message to satisfy Christians and pander to a captive audience.

Such authors as Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell which have earned their place as Christian Apologists (perhaps McDowell more so than Strobel) immediately excite such a reaction among unbelievers. Try to tell a skeptic to read one of their books and you will get a sneer or off-handed dismissal. Some, though, have gone so far as to make a mini-book/article "refutation" of Josh McDowell's "Evidence which demands a verdict" with the almost spiteful title "Evidence which does not demand a verdict". And of course such authors will not be infallible, but I think the point is missed in the "tearing-apart" of certain arguments that skeptics attempt (and occasionally succeed if they are fair, and not overly zealous - an ironic trait for an unbeliever to have). I think that they truly believe that Christians' faith is shallow and that we need proof texts to prove the validity of our beliefs, our faith in a risen Lord, and our new life in God. They don't see that our faith and confidence comes from the inside, empowered by the Holy Spirit, and not from emotional comfort-seeking and external constructs and arguments. In fact, some of them think Christians are just dumb and gullible and are spoon fed a cheap grade of theology and apologetic material that poisons rational thought. Not all unbelievers are like that, but the reasonable ones are hard to come by (and sadly the same can be said of some Christians who only help reinforce this common perception of Christian [un]intelligence, lack of confidence, and insincerity or gullibility).

The best defense I have found for this is to do exactly as 1 Peter 3:15 says and be ready to give a defense to those who ask of you, and give it as sincerely and loving as you can, strong in the knowledge of the word of God, stating it with confidence - and yes, even making rational or intelligent conversation out of it. But it will not be us, or an apologist author, or a well-respected Christian scholar (yes, of course there are such scholars) which will convince them of the truth of God's word and their need for a Savior. It depends on the state of the heart of the recipient and the Holy Spirit who might give grace enough to them that the truth would ring as genuine in their ears, hearts, and minds. We can muster the most intelligent and intellectual of arguments with which to defend the faith, but we cannot convince anyone who has already made their mind up as to the (in)validity of the Scriptures.

Can they base their decision on legitimate questions, objections, and critical thinking? Sure, but they will be lacking the one fact which, without taking it into account, will lead them astray and to incorrect conclusions - and that is this: That there is a God in heaven who created man and woman and every living thing, who had mercy upon us enough to send his Son Jesus to die on the cross to atone for the sins of those who would believe on him, and raised Him up on high, and has given those who believe His Holy Spirit and an inspired Scripture to guide His people and lead them to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. This, we cannot convince someone of. God must reveal it to them. Let them say the Bible is mythology, let them say it is a document forged over time by multiple hands with different interests and biases, let them slander the Bible and question the justice of God's laws - but God has made one thing clear: "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap" (Galatians 6:7). Let them peddle their mythology theories before God when he requires from them something wholly other and different, and much more relevant and immediate, at the judgment seat - and that is for them to account for their deeds done in the flesh and whether they believed and obeyed the Son whom He sent. Cries of mythology will ring mighty hollow on that day in God's judgment chamber. May God have mercy on those that would hear.

Speaking the truth in love,

Josh

Thanks for pointing this out. I agree with you - a person cannot believe until God opens their heart to receiving the truth. However, I do think God at times uses apologetics as a catalyst or instrument to do this. When Paul was in Athens, he used the altar to an unknown God set up by the Greeks as a launching pad off of which he proclaimed the Gospel. He started with what the Greeks knew and then systematically built off of it.
I realize that I am probably inviting a fray, and you are correct that a discussion here will not convince anyone of the truth if they are hardened to it. In some ways, I think of this forum in general as a bit of a learning experience where I am tested to see if I can defend my faith logically and where I try to work through the common arguments against Christianity for myself.

Thanks again for taking the time to write such a well-thought out response.

Izzy

 

[cyberjosh]

I am in agreement with everything you have said here. And I also look at the forums as a testing ground as well, an I have had my views and arguments refined through being on here. Forums on occasion though can become magnets for controversy and by nature can attract several strong willed people in the same "confined space". When such elements get too riled up though... well, that's where us moderators come in. I love a good intelligent, thoughtful, and sincere discussion though - and that's why I'm still here.

God Bless,

Josh

 

[Waymarker]

There is a view, especially among liberal theologians and scholars, that the supernatural events in the Bible did not literally occur?

Despite saying Jesus was not the son of God, even the Koran dare not deny he was a miracle man,do they argue with the Koran too?

[Koran 2.253] "We have made some of these apostles to excel the others, among them are they to whom Allah spoke, and some of them He exalted by many degrees of rank; and We gave clear miracles to Isa [Jesus] son of Marium [Mary], and strengthened him with the holy spirit. And if Allah had pleased, those after them would not have fought one with another after clear arguments had come to them, but they disagreed; so there were some of them who believed and others who denied; and if Allah had pleased they would not have fought one with another, but Allah brings about what He intends"

 

[izzy]

Despite saying Jesus was not the son of God, even the Koran dare not deny he was a miracle man,do they argue with the Koran too?

I have not heard of any liberal theologian arguing with the Koran. Interestingly, while it is fine to bash Christianity, it seems to be politically incorrect to say anything against Islam or the Koran. Either that, or most people are too scared to say anything against Islam since the Danish cartoons fuss, the murder of a Dutch filmmaker, and the various other incidents in which radical Muslims have risen up against people criticizing the Koran and Mohammad. Could be dangerous to a liberal theologian's health. :eyebrow

Well, that's my observation at least. There may be other reasons that liberal theologians do not target the Koran.

 

[Waymarker]

..Well, that's my observation at least. There may be other reasons that liberal theologians do not target the Koran.

Liberal left-wingers are Satan's ventriloquist dummies so he speaks through their mouths to attack Christianity because it's the only religion he fears..

 

[Physicist]

Despite saying Jesus was not the son of God, even the Koran dare not deny he was a miracle man,do they argue with the Koran too?

I have not heard of any liberal theologian arguing with the Koran. Interestingly, while it is fine to bash Christianity, it seems to be politically incorrect to say anything against Islam or the Koran. Either that, or most people are too scared to say anything against Islam since the Danish cartoons fuss, the murder of a Dutch filmmaker, and the various other incidents in which radical Muslims have risen up against people criticizing the Koran and Mohammad. Could be dangerous to a liberal theologian's health. :eyebrow

Well, that's my observation at least. There may be other reasons that liberal theologians do not target the Koran.

Its more personally dangerous to target the Q'uran than the Bible. I was ashamed for our country when American newspapers refused to run the Danish cartoons that poked fun at Mohammed because of the threat to staff. Such terrorism must be met head-on.

That said, a good book that criticizes the Q'uran is 'Why I am not a Muslim' by Ibn Warraq. It is published by Prometheus Press, famous for its liberal, anti-fundamentalist books.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

How do we know that the Bible is reliable? Sure, it plainly says that certain supernatural things occurred, but what evidence do we have that the Bible is a true documentation of history?

The study of the historicity and authenticity of the Scriptures is often referred to as historical criticism and I would encourage all Christians to dig into this field. A book that is often recommended is Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ.†There is a lot of evidence from history, archeology, and things within the Bible that demonstrate that this book was not made up by ignorant, superstitious, savages. What I would like to do in this thread is start up a conversation about the evidence for the authenticity of Scripture and the essentials of Christianity. Anyone have a specific topic or question they would like to start this thread with?

Yes, I have a question that I would like to entertain.

Given the worldview and timeframe in which the Bible was written, what was/is Mythology and what was its function?
For example, you mentioned the virgin birth. Would that have meant a particular thing in that era?

 

[izzy]

Its more personally dangerous to target the Q'uran than the Bible. I was ashamed for our country when American newspapers refused to run the Danish cartoons that poked fun at Mohammed because of the threat to staff. Such terrorism must be met head-on.

Hey Physicist,
I agree with your statement. Newspapers in North America behaved as cowards when they refused to reprint the cartoons to even just show what all the fuss was about. The situation in the U.S.A, however, does not seem nearly as bad as what we have in Canada. In Canada, one magazine called the Western Standard actually dared to reprint the cartoons and provide a commentary on them. The editor was then dragged before the human rights commission in Canada to answer for his actions. The human rights commission is a quasi governmental organization that is allowed to fine people for discriminatory and hate motivated "crimes." They are not a court and do not have the authority of the law, yet they have made it their mission to target anyone speaking out against certain groups, including Muslims.
The editor of the Western Standard, Ezra Levant, then proceeded to tell the tribunal that he had the right of freedom of speech to print whatever the h*** he wanted, and his readers would decide whether they liked it or not, instead of some kangaroo court. He had a cameraman film his "trial" and posted it on YouTube. The “interrogator†was so humiliated that she later resigned. Here is a link to Ezra Levant’s opening statement before the tribunal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8. Here’s where he hammers them nicely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iMNM1tef7g&NR=1.


Anyway, that’s an aside. This topic was originally about the reliability of the Bible in terms of the events recorded. Both Physicist and Tabasco Breath have expressed interest in discussing the virgin birth (Physicist did in another thread). How does this sound?

First, I want to make clear that I am coming from a Protestant perspective in my views. I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception whereby Mary herself was born “free from the taint of sin†as Catholic doctrine would teach. She did not perpetually remain a virgin after having Christ, either. Mary is not divine. I also despise any pagan notions of God coming down and having sex with Mary. I do, however, believe that the virgin birth is an essential element of Christianity as it speaks to the nature of Christ as fully man and fully God.

I’ll write a more full explanation of the Biblical statements concerning the virgin birth and my thoughts on it later. The day is old and I’m tired.

Izzy

 

[Physicist]

[. How does this sound?

First, I want to make clear that I am coming from a Protestant perspective in my views. I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception whereby Mary herself was born “free from the taint of sin†as Catholic doctrine would teach. She did not perpetually remain a virgin after having Christ, either. Mary is not divine. I also despise any pagan notions of God coming down and having sex with Mary. I do, however, believe that the virgin birth is an essential element of Christianity as it speaks to the nature of Christ as fully man and fully God.

I’ll write a more full explanation of the Biblical statements concerning the virgin birth and my thoughts on it later. The day is old and I’m tired.

Izzy

I look forward to the discussion

 

[Tabasco Breath]

Humans can't do miracles, but Gods can.
Humans are natural, Gods are supernatural.
Humans take their place on earth through natural birth.
Gods take their place on earth through supernatural birth.

As mythology is passed down there are certain literary devices like supernatural births that are in line with those supernatural actions of the protagonist. Humans can't do miracles, but the supernatural can. Mythology during the Biblical era is riddled with supernatural births of supernatural men.

The account of the supernatural birth is nothing more then a literary device and like a literary device it had a common function and in that era commonly recognized.

As the old Native America adage goes, "I don't know if it happened like this, but the story is true" meaning the literal events of the story are not to be taken literal, but the meaning is intended to impart some lesson in truth...the vehicle for that lesson is Mythology and the Bible is by no means immune.

 

[cyberjosh]

Humans can't do miracles, but Gods can.
Humans are natural, Gods are supernatural.
Humans take their place on earth through natural birth.
Gods take their place on earth through supernatural birth.

As mythology is passed down there are certain literary devices like supernatural births that are in line with those supernatural actions of the protagonist. Humans can't do miracles, but the supernatural can. Mythology during the Biblical era is riddled with supernatural births of supernatural men.

The account of the supernatural birth is nothing more then a literary device and like a literary device it had a common function and in that era commonly recognized.

As the old Native America adage goes, "I don't know if it happened like this, but the story is true" meaning the literal events of the story are not to be taken literal, but the meaning is intended to impart some lesson in truth...the vehicle for that lesson is Mythology and the Bible is by no means immune.

That's very vague. Do you have an informed opinion you would like to share? One cannot blanket all ancient and modern religions under a simple explanation of how their beliefs and/or writings are mythology. I'm sure you had some specific examples in mind?

 

[izzy]

Tabasco Breath, it sounds like you’ve already made up your mind on the Virgin Birth, but I’ll give my arguments anyway.

Traditional Christianity has always held that Christ was both fully man and fully God. Some verses backing this are as follows:

Christ’s humanity

• 1. He was expressly called a man (John 8:40, 1 Timothy 2:5) and was descended from the line of David (Matthew 1).
  2. He possessed a material body (Matthew 26:26, John 1:14, 1 John 4:2)
  3. He performed normal human activities like eating, drinking, resting (John 4:6), and showed emotions like anger (Mark 3:5) and grief (John 11:35).
  4. He developed like an ordinary human (Luke 2:40-52), suffered, and was tempted (Hebrews 2:18).
  5. He sweated blood in Gethsemane (Luke 22:44) due to his spiritual torment and did not live long after being hung on the cross - all of which are medically plausible.

Christ’s divinity

• 1. Possessed a knowledge of his own deity (John 8:58, John 14:9-10)
  2. Exercised divine powers and prerogatives. He had supernatural knowledge (John 2:24-25, John 4), he commanded evil spirits (Luke 4:33), he healed, he commanded nature (Mark 4:39), and he raised people from the dead (John 11).
  3. God the Father confirms that Christ is also God in the transfiguration (Matthew 17:2) and Christ’s baptism (Matthew 3:17).

The Gospel accounts depict Christ as a single and undivided personality with a single consciousness and will, not just a man indwellt by the Spirit of God like the prophets. He did not have a sinful nature (unlike the rest of humanity) and he never sinned (John 8:46, John 14:30, 1 Peter 2:22).
It was necessary for Christ to be sinless so that he could be the perfect sacrifice for humanity’s sin. The punishment for a single sin is eternal death (Romans 6:23), so every human was doomed to death before the atonement made by Christ.

So that’s the background. Now for the Virgin Birth.

Every human, except for Christ, that has ever been born was conceived by the joining of a sperm with an egg. All humans born in this manner also have a sinful nature, derived from the first humans who sinned - Adam and Eve. Thus, it makes sense that if Christ were to be free of this nature, he would have had to been born in a different way. A normal conception would have created a human being to whom the person and deity of Jesus would have to be added, but this would have given rise to a dual nature. Some have raised the possibility of parthenogenesis in which the egg is somehow given the other 23 chromosomes needed by the mother as well - a kind of cloning where the egg’s nucleus is replaced by a normal human cell - but that would have produced a female offspring. So we are left with a conception that apparently does not have a physical explanation. In fact, the incarnation of Christ is one of the most confounding things I can think of, aside from quantum mechanics and relativity.

While it is true that other religions before the time of Christ had stories of virgins giving birth, those stories are all polytheistic and usually follow the story-line of some god coming in the form of an animal or something else physically tangible and doing something to a girl he had fallen in love with. This is not the kind of virgin birth spoken of in the Gospel accounts. It was through the power of the Holy Spirit that Mary conceived and there was no physical intercourse. She also learned of it ahead of time and was willing to serve God in that way (Luke 1:38).

Interestingly, aside from Matthew and Luke’s individual and separate accounts, there is no specific mention of the virgin birth anywhere else in the New Testament, but there are hints. In John 8:41, it is indicated that there were rumours surrounding Christ’s birth. Paul, in his letters, specifically avoids the normal word for born when referring to the birth of Christ and instead uses a verb meaning “come to be†(Romans 1:3, Galatians 4:4). Mary, herself, kept the miraculous birth of Christ and the circumstances surrounding it a secret until she really understood who Christ was (Luke 2:19). Not until the church fathers after A.D 100 was the virgin birth preached on more specifically. These early writers wrote against gnostics and others who denied certain orthodox Christian beliefs regarding Christ’s nature.

Is the virgin birth essential to Christianity? Yes, because it is so integrally connected with the Christian view of the nature of Christ.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

That's very vague. Do you have an informed opinion you would like to share? One cannot blanket all ancient and modern religions under a simple explanation of how their beliefs and/or writings are mythology. I'm sure you had some specific examples in mind?

Jesus birth narrative in fact takes on the same characteristics as a Demigod.

Demigod:
1. Mythology.
a. A male being, often the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has some but not all of the powers of a god.
b. An inferior deity; a minor god.
c. A deified man.
2. A person who is highly honored or revered.

This miraculous event lets the listeners know, hey, this isn’t just another normal person. It’s a rather common means to explain the basis of rather unique men.

Here is the Early Church Father Origen arguing in “Origen, Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 37â€, that the miracle birth of Jesus is no different then the fables they (the Greeks) believe:

“And there is no absurdity in employing Grecian histories to answer Greeks, with the view of showing that we are not the only persons who have recourse to miraculous narratives of this kind. For some have thought fit, not in regard to ancient and heroic narratives, but in regard to events of very recent occurrence, to relate as a possible thing that Plato was the son of Amphictione, Ariston being prevented from having marital intercourse with his wife until she had given birth to him with whom she was pregnant by Apollo. And yet these are veritable fables, which have led to the invention of such stories concerning a man whom they regarded as possessing greater wisdom and power than the multitude, and as having received the beginning of his corporeal substance from better and diviner elements than others, because they thought that this was appropriate to persons who were too great to be human beings. “

When those of that era wanted to make someone out to be more than a normal person, they used common literary devices that showed how he received his divinity from someone or something. We know that because the ancients said so themselves.

Here is Justin Martyr conceding the birth of Jesus is no different then the birth of Perseus, and as an offer in apology he contends that Satan anticipating the miraculous birth of Jesus and “counterfeited†the birth of Pereus the same:

“And this prophecy proves that we shall behold this very King with glory; and the very terms of the prophecy declare loudly, that the people foreknown to believe in Him were foreknown to pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures, and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding. And when I hear, Trypho," said I, "that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this." (Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, Chapters LXIX - LXX)

My contention is not that the all aspects of religion are myth, but rather religion uses mythology in its full intents to impart that in which they wish to convey.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

Thanks izzy for the response.

I do understand Christian Church theology and the essentiality of the virgin birth.

I really don’t get too caught up in the particular miracle aspects (Holy Spirit impregnated virgin) of Jesus birth that separate them from the myriad of other supernatural birth accounts. For the point is this person in question is not your normal human being. Sometimes people so steeped in faith miss the forest for the trees.

You mention Mary being told ahead of time of the pending birth. When one objectively reads that account it strongly lends itself to read like a story replete with set up lines.

Imagine Mary, betrothed to Joseph, and out of nowhere comes an angel saying:

“…you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there will be no endâ€

Okay, Mary is about to get married and naturally provide Joseph children, and the angel tells her the son she will bare will be called the Son of God. Very well, Son of God just meant a divine affiliation as there were numerous people called Sons of God in their tradition.

However out of nowhere Mary says this:

“How can this be, since I am a virgin?â€

What an odd thing for Mary to say if she is engaged and rather soon to marry Joseph. It reads like it is for it is in fact merely a literary setup line for the angel to respond in kind:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most
High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.â€

This announced supernatural birth goes back to my point that those who are seen as divine, who are seen as more then men, it is anticipated just as the writers have Mary anticipating the call for not just your natural, birth but rather a entity who is more then human.

 

[logical bob]

A few thoughts on the virgin birth.

I agree with Tabasco Breath that significant characters in the ancient world often had special birth stories. That of Moses leaps to mind. There were very similar stories about Cyrus, king of Persia.

I'm not so sure that the Gospel writers were using the virgin birth to emphasise Jesus' heroic nature in this way, however. I think they may have been more concerned with their reading of Isaiah 7:14. Matthew seems specially concerned to cross-reference his narrative to OT prophecy.

izzy says that because of original sin the virgin birth is essential if Jesus is to be a sinless sacrifice. I see what you mean, but none of the Epistles mention the virgin birth (I think) and they have a very developed sacrificial theology. Paul stresses in various places that Jesus was born of a woman and that he was a descendent of David but he shows no sign that he finds virgin birth essential for his theology.

 

[Physicist]

Tabasco Breath, it sounds like you’ve already made up your mind on the Virgin Birth, but I’ll give my arguments anyway.

Traditional Christianity has always held that Christ was both fully man and fully God. Some verses backing this are as follows:

Christ’s humanity

• 1. He was expressly called a man (John 8:40, 1 Timothy 2:5) and was descended from the line of David (Matthew 1).
  2. He possessed a material body (Matthew 26:26, John 1:14, 1 John 4:2)
  3. He performed normal human activities like eating, drinking, resting (John 4:6), and showed emotions like anger (Mark 3:5) and grief (John 11:35).
  4. He developed like an ordinary human (Luke 2:40-52), suffered, and was tempted (Hebrews 2:18).
  5. He sweated blood in Gethsemane (Luke 22:44) due to his spiritual torment and did not live long after being hung on the cross - all of which are medically plausible.

Christ’s divinity

• 1. Possessed a knowledge of his own deity (John 8:58, John 14:9-10)
  2. Exercised divine powers and prerogatives. He had supernatural knowledge (John 2:24-25, John 4), he commanded evil spirits (Luke 4:33), he healed, he commanded nature (Mark 4:39), and he raised people from the dead (John 11).
  3. God the Father confirms that Christ is also God in the transfiguration (Matthew 17:2) and Christ’s baptism (Matthew 3:17).

The Gospel accounts depict Christ as a single and undivided personality with a single consciousness and will, not just a man indwellt by the Spirit of God like the prophets. He did not have a sinful nature (unlike the rest of humanity) and he never sinned (John 8:46, John 14:30, 1 Peter 2:22).
It was necessary for Christ to be sinless so that he could be the perfect sacrifice for humanity’s sin. The punishment for a single sin is eternal death (Romans 6:23), so every human was doomed to death before the atonement made by Christ.

So that’s the background. Now for the Virgin Birth.

Every human, except for Christ, that has ever been born was conceived by the joining of a sperm with an egg. All humans born in this manner also have a sinful nature, derived from the first humans who sinned - Adam and Eve. Thus, it makes sense that if Christ were to be free of this nature, he would have had to been born in a different way. A normal conception would have created a human being to whom the person and deity of Jesus would have to be added, but this would have given rise to a dual nature. Some have raised the possibility of parthenogenesis in which the egg is somehow given the other 23 chromosomes needed by the mother as well - a kind of cloning where the egg’s nucleus is replaced by a normal human cell - but that would have produced a female offspring. So we are left with a conception that apparently does not have a physical explanation. In fact, the incarnation of Christ is one of the most confounding things I can think of, aside from quantum mechanics and relativity.

While it is true that other religions before the time of Christ had stories of virgins giving birth, those stories are all polytheistic and usually follow the story-line of some god coming in the form of an animal or something else physically tangible and doing something to a girl he had fallen in love with. This is not the kind of virgin birth spoken of in the Gospel accounts. It was through the power of the Holy Spirit that Mary conceived and there was no physical intercourse. She also learned of it ahead of time and was willing to serve God in that way (Luke 1:38).

Interestingly, aside from Matthew and Luke’s individual and separate accounts, there is no specific mention of the virgin birth anywhere else in the New Testament, but there are hints. In John 8:41, it is indicated that there were rumours surrounding Christ’s birth. Paul, in his letters, specifically avoids the normal word for born when referring to the birth of Christ and instead uses a verb meaning “come to be†(Romans 1:3, Galatians 4:4). Mary, herself, kept the miraculous birth of Christ and the circumstances surrounding it a secret until she really understood who Christ was (Luke 2:19). Not until the church fathers after A.D 100 was the virgin birth preached on more specifically. These early writers wrote against gnostics and others who denied certain orthodox Christian beliefs regarding Christ’s nature.

Is the virgin birth essential to Christianity? Yes, because it is so integrally connected with the Christian view of the nature of Christ.

I think Tabasco Breath has given an excellent commentary on the most likely origins of the virgin birth tale, which is only mentioned in two of the four canonical gospels. Many scholars have also concluded that, even in these two cases, the tale is a late edition. Claimed other references such as those you mention above have the characteristics of verbal Rohrschach tests with the interpretation coming from the wishes of the reader. For example, my Gideon Bible says plainly that Paul specified that Jesus was 'born of a women' with no mention of the Holy Spirit as the Father. John, Chapter 8 has Jesus discussing the Father of the Pharisees, who he figuratively says is the Devil.

The statement that the Jesus tale is somehow different than the other God-virgin stories because a euphemism is used for the Holy Spirit having sex with Mary doesn't hold water. The Bible often uses a euphemism for sexual relations, even when it is between two normal humans.

The reason why the virgin birth myth would be added (late) to the Jesus legend is obvious and well explained by Tabasco Breath. If, as Izzy claims, it is factual, you would have to ask how did the two gospel authors verify the story? These texts were written well after Mary and Joseph would have been dead and, based upon your particular theology, a post-birth examination of Mary would not show her to be a virgin in any case. Even if you accept (I don't) the story about Mary meeting an angel, wouldn't the more logical interpretation be that she made it up because she had sex outside of marriage? As pointed out elsewhere, the supposed words of Mary are quite artificial as is the convenient dream of Joseph by the other author, who does not mention the angel-Mary meeting at all. Again, if you buy this alternative story as having any validity, the more rational conclusion would be that Joseph chose to ignore the pregnancy of his bride and made up the dream as a cover to save face.

There is no reason to accept the virgin birth tale as factual except if one puts aside common sense and takes it completely on faith alone.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

A few thoughts on the virgin birth.

I agree with Tabasco Breath that significant characters in the ancient world often had special birth stories. That of Moses leaps to mind. There were very similar stories about Cyrus, king of Persia.

I'm not so sure that the Gospel writers were using the virgin birth to emphasise Jesus' heroic nature in this way, however. I think they may have been more concerned with their reading of Isaiah 7:14. Matthew seems specially concerned to cross-reference his narrative to OT prophecy.

izzy says that because of original sin the virgin birth is essential if Jesus is to be a sinless sacrifice. I see what you mean, but none of the Epistles mention the virgin birth (I think) and they have a very developed sacrificial theology. Paul stresses in various places that Jesus was born of a woman and that he was a descendent of David but he shows no sign that he finds virgin birth essential for his theology.

Hi logical bob,

Isaiah 7:14...to me the tying of that pericope to Jesus is another account where meaning trumps literal intent of the Isaiah writer. When read in context there is no way they were meaning Jesus, but just like any Sunday preacher worth their salt, the idea is take an Bible account and give it meaning for their contemporary audience without regard of what the original author meant. The writer of Matthew does that with Isaiah 7. The writer of Matthew uses Isaiah beyond it’s intent to depart the significance of Jesus.

Just as side bar of a thought...but I often wonder how much Hellenism and their ideas may have shaped the birth narrative of Jesus, for Jesus is in characteristic of a Demigod, and the audience of that era given Hellenism would have been familiar with the concept.

 

[mondar]

There is a view, especially among liberal theologians and scholars, that the supernatural events in the Bible did not literally occur.........

Machen long ago recognized that the so called "liberal" view is not Christianity. In fact it comes from a very different world view. Machen called it naturalism. He says on page 2....
(link---http://books.google.com/books?id=WVBgg00gJLcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0802811213&ei=Yyl8S-rQGZzOMMqFrcMH&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false )

"In the sphere of religion, in particular, the present time is a time of conflict; the great redemptive religion has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional terminology. This modern non-redemptive religion is called "modernism" or "liberalism." Both names are unsatisfactory, the later is question begging. The movement designated as "liberalism" is regarded as "liberal" only by its friends; to its opponents it seems to involve a narrow ignoring of many relevant facts.... The many varieties of modern liberal religion are rooted in naturalism--- that is the denial of any entrance of the creative power of God (as distinguished from the ordinary course of nature) in connection with the creation of Christianity."

Why do the many varieties of liberals and non-Christians call the bible "myth?" Some will say they are referring to a kind of literature in the bible. Certainly I do not deny different literary genre in the scriptures. But that is not the issue. The question is this----do those who claim the bible is myth, do they do this from a naturalistic presupposition?

So then, to give my opinion on the question of the OP, the Bible has many literary genre, but that is not the issue. The issue is the naturalistic world view of those in what Machen calls "modern non-redemptive religion."