Reconciling Faith with Evolution

[genovese]

"One crucial detail I would like to add to what you mention, genovese, is that even Greek, Roman, and Jewish sources dating to the time of Christ, all of whom had very good reasons to attempt to destroy Christianity in its early stages, agreed 100% with the Biblical record"

I would be very grateful if you would give me the references regarding the Greek, Roman and Jewish sources.

Miracles do not impress me. I have seen some fantastic conjuring tricks which could just as easily be described by some people as miracles. The reference to the miracle reported in The Times, regarding mother Teresa and the priest who passed a kidney stone is quite a common occurrence. It appears that he was given medicine to dissolve the stone but that it didn't work. It may have worked enough however to break the stone up into smaller pieces, which he then passed naturally in his urine. Anybody who has experienced pain from renal colic would gladly label it as a miracle once the pain disappeared, for whatever reason.

[alextemplet]

Here's a link dealing with the early historical sources on the life of Christ, which cites numerous sources:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

Here's a quote from that link; an excerpt from the The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josphus (the italics are my addition for emphasis):

About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvellous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased.

Here's a another link that, while it doesn't cite its sources, does offer some interesting historical analysis:

http://www.catholic.net/us_catholic_news/template_article.phtml?channel_id=1&article_id=5188

[genovese]

Having read your link to the reference by the historian Josephus and having looked up Josephus himself I come to the conclusion that no one is sure of the authenticity of the passage which you quote. Many scholars think that this passage is a later interpolation by Christians. In fact the only remaining version of the “Antiquities of the Jews Xviii” is in Greek and is dated around the 9th century, having been handed down by the Christian Church!

This is a classical example of believing what you want to believe. Attaching such importance to text, whose authenticity is unproven cannot, in my mind, be regarded as sound judgement.

I would suggest that the message which Jesus delivered would be better without mentioning miracles or texts which confuse rather than enlighten. If the message is good, it should be able to stand on its own.

What I did find interesting is that none of these historical early texts (excluding the gospels) mention the Virgin Birth story. To-day, this would have been in every newspaper headline- yet we find no mention of it. Would you not have thought that his enemies would have used this claim against him at his trial? They used the “Son of God” to condemn him but they could equally well have strengthened their case by ridiculing his claim to have been born of a virgin. Could it be that Jesus wasn’t aware of the story? That the Virgin Birth was invented after his death? If there is a reference to the virgin birth of Jesus (outside of the old or new Testaments), I would be grateful if you would let me know.

[alextemplet]

Here's a link that lists most of the sources, as well as arguments for and against, the virgin birth of Christ:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm

Regarding the claims that Jesus was born of virgin:

They are found in all manuscripts, translations, and early Christian citations, in all printed editions — in brief, in all the documents considered by the critics as reliable witnesses for the genuineness of a text.

[genovese]

Thanks for the above link.

Quote:
They are found in all manuscripts, translations, and early Christian citations, in all printed editions — in brief, in all the documents considered by the critics as reliable witnesses for the genuineness of a text.

Your quotation really says that the "critics" are Christian theological scholars who naturally will find any reference in texts to the Virgin Mary as genuine. This is a circular argument and no proof at all.

Reading through the literature the only witnesses to the event were Mary and the Angel. We do not know when Mary told others about the Virgin birth. It may well be that she divulged this after the death of Jesus and so He wouldn't have known about it. This would explain why it may not have been common knowledge during the life time of Jesus.

This would explain why it was not used as evidence against him at his trial.

But if it only became known after the death of Jesus, then it does suggest that it was possibly invented by Mary to help the early Christian sect that was developing. Or to be fairer to Mary it was probably invented by the early gospel writers.

[alextemplet]

Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying the Pharisees should've used the virgin birth as evidence against Christ? I'm not sure how you make that conclusion; being born of a virgin would've proven His legitimacy as the Messiah, and would've been a powerful argument for His innocence. I am not sure why you think this might have been used to incriminate Him.

[genovese]

They could have used it in two ways against Him.

1 To presume that he was born of a virgin would have added to his other claim to have been born the "Son of God" for which he was crucified. In other words more proof of his blasphemy.
OR
2 They could have used it to ridicule him for making such a silly claim.

[alextemplet]

It's doubtful they would've gone with the latter since their own scriptures prophesied that the Messiah would've been born of a virgin. Calling it a silly claim would be ridiculing the scriptures that gave them their authority.

As for the first possibility, claiming to be born of a virgin would not in itself be blasphemous, and so I doubt it would've helped their cause very much.

[genovese]

Or, Jesus himself could have used it in his defence to add substance to his claim that he was the son of God. Either way it is very odd that it did not come up in his trial from one side or the other. The virgin births story is one of the pillars of the Christian Faith and here, at his trial, it is not even mentioned.
How can you find that not to be an odd omission?

Had it been mentioned, then I am sure that the Gospel writers would have pounced on it as being evidence of something.

[alextemplet]

Jesus said absolutely nothing in His defense because there was nothing He could've said that would've made a difference. The Pharisees already knew everything He had preached, claimed it was all lies, and also claimed that the miracles He performed were the work of demons. They had made up their minds to execute Him no matter what and the trial was nothing more than a formality. Jesus knew that He was condemned before the trial even began, and that's why He didn't speak in His own defense.

[genovese]

That fact that the "virgin birth" story does not appear to have been mentioned during the life time of Jesus by anyone and that it was never written about by any of the contemporary writers or historians of the time is odd, to say the least.

You have rationalized this as normal and you find nothing which makes you doubt the story. I can only say that if I were on the jury I would have to infer that the "virgin birth" never occurred, and that there is simply not enough evidence to support it.

[alextemplet]

Beware of taking things out of their contexts . . .