(March 25, 2014 at 12:01 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: No Marian cunt I won't.

Take your theist bullshit somewhere else.

Wow, you really care for some reason that it is the case that this person has views that are theist and simultaneously bullshit.

Maybe at some point I also cared as much as you do about that.

Glad I don't now.

I have accepted that in general, that is that is the case for probably about 90% of the world's population, and that I must accept as a fact of the world.

This sort of objection demonstrates a lack of realization that there is NO relevance for the virgin birth in the places where it is lacking mention. Remember, the NT materials were written to people who ALREADY believed the Gospel. By the time the were reading this stuff, they had already accepted all of the basic tenets, and already had all the basic information.

Furthermore, Paul was writing "problem-oriented" letters - so that there was really no need to go out of the way to mention anything that he did not have pertinence for.

The virgin birth was not seen in a christological perspective when Matthew and Luke reported it; hence, there is no reason for it to appear in Paul's letters or elsewhere in the NT. There is not even any reason for it to be in Mark and John (note that in the missionary preaching of Acts, the kerygma begins not with Jesus' birth, but with his baptism by John) - but there is a reason for Matthew and Luke to use it: The former wished to link it to the fulfillment of prophecy (Is. 7:14); the latter showed especial interest in the life of Mary.

The argument that there were pagan stories of Virginal birth and the Virginal birth was not mentioned by Paul, do not prove anything, because what is true Doctrine is not proven false because of what Paul didn't say or what Doctrines may also resemble what was taught by pagans. Even Pagans had some of the truth. THey still do.

Aye, Bucky, chill out bro.

You always provide awesome information, but you're being a bit too abrasive right now.

(March 25, 2014 at 12:22 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: This sort of objection demonstrates a lack of realization that there is NO relevance for the virgin birth in the places where it is lacking mention. Remember, the NT materials were written to people who ALREADY believed the Gospel. By the time the were reading this stuff, they had already accepted all of the basic tenets, and already had all the basic information.

"They" were never "reading" it. The literacy rate was about 5%. The gospels were not written to be "read". They were written to be "proclaimed" in liturgies. Nothing in them is "reported". The Hebrews had no word for "history" in the sense we understand it today. The content was ALREADY believed, thus is just a list of what was already believed. They are absolutely NOT "historical". Your "true doctrine" bullshit is the DEFINITION of "circular logic". No scholar talks about "pagans" in 2014. I see you must have been home-schooled.

---

(March 25, 2014 at 12:26 am)futilethewinds Wrote: That was incoherent to you? You poor thing, because you might have gained something from what I said.

And what I said was in no way ad populum.
That is saying that there is a reason to believe something because it is popular. Definitely not what I was saying.

Don't care what you think the point is or whether or not I have addressed it.

Then STFU. If I need any advice from the likes of you, I'll be sure and ask.

(March 25, 2014 at 12:32 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: Then STFU. If I need any advice from the likes of you, I'll be sure and ask.

YEP, not "shutting the fuck up". Don't care if you need or even if you want it. Just putting it out there on the off chance it would benefit you.

Objections against the validity of the virgin birth are based mostly on preconceived notions - in the main, that the miraculous is impossible. There is no reason, other than pre-conceived notions, to reject it as historical; and to be fair, no reason other than ones own perceptions to accept it as such.

No point in arguing what you can't prove, and no, the early Church Father's and no significant communion of early Christians believed the Virgin Birth as is clearly defined in the Bible, was a mistranslation.

Mistranslation... Lie.

Po-Tay-Toe ...Po-Tah-Toe