For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[Undeceived]

The Bible is prone to no error

Correct. It is in fact the rest of the ancient world that decided to ignore a census that our Lord recorded in Luke's Gospel.

By now you've heard many possible explanations for Luke's wording. Would Luke have recorded a census if there wasn't one? That's like you claiming there was a president between Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon named Johnny Cool. Any fool could look it up and your story would lose credibility. Instead, history shows us that people believed Luke's account, as early as 60AD, which is why Christianity exploded in the way that it did.

[The Grand Nudger]

You think that's why christianity "exploded the way it did"?

[FallentoReason]

Correct. It is in fact the rest of the ancient world that decided to ignore a census that our Lord recorded in Luke's Gospel.

By now you've heard many possible explanations for Luke's wording. Would Luke have recorded a census if there wasn't one?

Would two Gospels have recorded a virgin birth even though the OT didn't mention such a prophecy?

Cognitive dissonance my friend. Luckily for you (and unluckily for the world) you will do anything to find an explanation for your faith's shortcomings in order to save your beliefs instead of seeing it for what it is: a fraudulent bunch of made up lies, courtesy of dishonest Christians.

[Minimalist]

Correct. It is in fact the rest of the ancient world that decided to ignore a census that our Lord recorded in Luke's Gospel.

By now you've heard many possible explanations for Luke's wording. Would Luke have recorded a census if there wasn't one? That's like you claiming there was a president between Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon named Johnny Cool. Any fool could look it up and your story would lose credibility. Instead, history shows us that people believed Luke's account, as early as 60AD, which is why Christianity exploded in the way that it did.

I am finding it hard to accept that you could be as stupid as you sound...but you are convincing me.

No one heard of "Luke's" account until Irenaeus named it so....at the end of the 2d century AD. Try...just once...to get your head out of your ass.

[Undeceived]

[FallentoReason]

[Minimalist]

[Undeceived]

[Confused Ape]

[FallentoReason]

My point is that we have clear examples of fabrications by the early Christians, yet none of you are capable of accepting this fact, as you demonstrated with the post before this one.

It doesn't matter if 100 hearsay accounts had recorded it, why, because the OT doesn't claim any such thing. It's a clear indication of Christians mistranslating the OT which inevitably exposes the whole thing as a fabrication.

Woah, slow down. Let me see if I can state your argument. You're saying that there are clear fabrications by early Christians and the virgin birth described by Matthew is one of them. Your argument, as close as I can come to:
1) The old Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 uses the word almah, making the translation "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a [young woman] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
2) Matthew in 1:23 writes “The virgin [parthenos] will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.”
3) almah "young woman" and parthenos "virgin" have two entirely different meanings
C) Matthew purposely mistranslated Isaiah's words.
The trouble here is you're using inductive reasoning-- you don't have all the information. Matthew did not translate from the Hebrew Old Testament. He used the Septuagint, or Greek Old Testament. It is the Septuagint, not Matthew, that swaps parthenos for almah and shifts the meaning. And I would guess that these 2nd century BC Jews (who predated Jesus) had good reason for making the translation. Meanings of words evolve over time. Now I'm speculating, but in ancient Jewish times "young woman" had always entailed the woman being a virgin. Therefore, translators decided to transliterate the word in order to preserve its intended meaning over its literal meaning. Even if you disagree, it is clear that Matthew harbored no dishonest intentions.

Let's go with this for a second. It is still clear that the story as a whole is a fabrication because the bit Matthew is quoting isn't even a prophecy to begin with. Even if it was, it hasn't been fulfilled. Notice Matthew's cheeky sleight of hand:

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23
The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.

Matthew has changed it from being the mother who will call the son Immanuel, to the general public calling him Immanuel "which means God with us", because quite clearly, the "messiah" isn't called Immanuel. The simple explanation to this is, as I stated, that Isaiah isn't talking about some messiah. He's talking with king Ahaz about his enemies and what not. So clearly, when one reads the chapter properly, the entire aura surrounding this verse as a "messianic prophecy" vanishes.

If I misinterpreted your thoughts, please state your argument. You merely asserted "we have clear examples of fabrications... yet none of you are capable of accepting this fact" and kind of left me out to dry. We may not be engaging in formal debate, but if you want to get any of your words across (and I hope that is their goal) you must communicate effectively. Write for your reader, not for yourself. That way you'll at least have the appearance of open-mindedness. If you don't intend to convince me, why post replies at all? Convincing requires evidence. Provide some. What other "clear fabrications" do you have up your sleeve?

My apologies. At times, I post when I'm on my way into the city and I don't take much care in writing an in depth post.

"At odds" is a strong misuse of words. "Lacks explicit accordance with" is more accurate. While Paul did not specifically mention the virgin birth, his doctrine fits like a glove. He writes that Jesus "though existing in the form of God" emptied himself and took on human form, "being made in the likeness of humankind" (Philippians 2:6-7). He says further "though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8:9). He has to be referring here, metaphorically, to the "riches" of Jesus' pre-existence with God, since all our sources have Jesus born of a poor peasant family. Paul also writes "In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman . . ." (Galatians 4:4), referring only to Mary, ignoring the usual way of naming a son by his father. The implication of these texts is that Jesus' mother was merely the human receptacle for bringing Jesus into the world. It is not a far step from these ideas about Jesus' pre-existence to the notion of Jesus as the first-begotten Son of God--eliminating any necessity for a human father. The virgin birth is necessary to God's triune nature, but not so important that every Christian have the facts repeated to them. Recall that Paul mentions few other Gospel events. His letters are meant to be accompaniments to the eyewitness accounts that were already circulating. They addressed practical issues within the church, and focused almost exclusively on Jesus' death and resurrection and what that victory means for us. Paul even professes, "I'm not even worthy to be called an apostle," (1 Cor 15:9) drawing a line between he, who persecuted the church, and the disciples who personally knew and followed Jesus. He preached only what had been revealed to him, as 15:3 states, "I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me." In short, 1) Paul's teaching on God's nature welcomes the virgin birth; 2) Joseph is never mentioned; and 3) Paul didn't feel it was his place, nor necessary, to discuss the virgin birth.

There's a lot there which isn't really on topic. All I will say is that Paul could have easily used the word for "virgin" when referring to his birth. Only then I might believe you that he was referring only to Mary, but the fact that he simply says "a woman" (not even a "young" woman at that) seems to show he was unfamiliar with Jesus' alleged miraculous birth, let alone anyone by the name of "Mary". I just don't see how you could think he was somehow explicitly referring to Mary. Only through wishful thinking...