Did they take Mary's word for it that she was a pregnant virgin?
8
Okay, I took the bait and looked this guy up. Seems he has a new twist on the First Cause argument for the existence of God.
It starts off simply enough: Everything that has a beginning must necessarily have a cause.
Maybe. Okay, fine. But we can't say the universe has a beginning, only that our present observable universe can be traced back to the Big Bang. We have no idea what came before it.
Then he adds this interesting idea: Time is necessarily finite. Seems he got this idea from the paradox of Hilbert's Hotel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel), which is a paradox only if one does not understand the concept of infinity. He dismisses the idea of infinity by pointing out the absurdity of adding additional guests to a full hotel, because, he says, it has the same number of guests before and after the additional check-ins: an infinite number.
But the problem is, infinity is not a number. Anyone with a basic mathematical education knows this. And further, someone who has taken more advanced math knows that there are infinitely many numbers between any two distinct numbers. In other words, there are an infinite number of infinities!
But I'm beginning to see why he believes in miracles.
19
First, cases of impregnating of a woman without making her loosing virginity, are well known.
Second, the Divinity of Jesus is the foundation stone of the 33,800 Christian sects (the number reported in NYT a few months ago) and the cause of the rupture of primordial monotheism in Judaism and Christianity.
Third, let the believers believe in whatever they want, life as Eternal Struggle of Good and Evil goes on.
11
I believe in the Easter bunny. Because an omnipotent God could do it and it's a relatively small miracle. Glad to see such clear-thinking on the pages of the NYT.
103
It's a shame we don't have DNA samples from Mary and Jesus so that we could see God's contribution to Jesus' genome. It would be a hoot too identify the omnipotence gene.
57
The operative word here is faith. If you don’t have it, none this makes any difference at all. Give me the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have been touched by his noodly appendage!
52
Why is it so darn important that Mary be a virgin? Why are the world's three major religions so hung up on sex? Makes me wonder what happened way back then that got those old geezers so terrified of women? In all of recorded history they've been bound, gagged, veiled, owned, bought, sold, had there heads shaved, not allowed to drive and God knows what all....And come revelation, if God turns out to be a woman....Y'all got a lot of explaining to do...
101
About virginity, I can say for sure that quite a few of our kids aren't virgins any longer thanks to the church.
57
I'm no believer, in God or anything connected to the idea, but as pure debate, Craig trounces Kristof, who comes across only as a peevish needler.
11
This is a pointless, unanswerable question. Why? Because the person called "Jesus" by the founders of a Christian religion decades or centuries after his death was actually a Jewish zealot, a radical. His focus was on cleansing and renewing a Jewish religion corrupted by a priestly caste in charge of the Temple in Jerusalem. And when he threatened the order of the day he was murdered by the Romans whose empire included Jerusalem. Only much later was this no doubt charismatic man turned into the Christ and a myth created which included much else besides his virgin birth. And also, by the way, it was at that time, with the Christians struggling for survival within a hostile Roman empire, that they pinned his death on the Jews.
65
I'm sure Jesus would be disturbed by this wallowing in trivia while the true meanings are lost....
22
Not bad press...Christians (the sanctimonious evangelical, televangelist types) get the press they deserve. All are hypocrites and many are just con artists; it's why they support a con artist in the WH.
52
All I can say is Jesus H. Christ!! The nonsense that people will believe never fails to shock me. This is how you landed up with Donald Trump as President of your United States and why (unless he dies) he will likely win next time. People will believe anything. The older I get the less I like people.
102
God and religion. When will these charlatans admit you can believe in the former without the aid of the latter?
15
Anyone, fortunately, is free to believe in this kind of stories, as long as he or she does not aim at convincing anybody about them...but reading that "interview" in the NYTimes in 2018 is surprising
27
“It is easy to see why it upset the ancient Christians. Even by today’s standards, Celsus’s On the True Doctrine feels bracingly direct. It wasn’t just Mary and Moses who were attacked. Everything was. Jesus was not, Celsus wrote, conceived through the Holy Spirit. This, he scoffs, was most unlikely because Mary wouldn’t have been beautiful enough to tempt a deity. 16 Instead, he says, Jesus was conceived via the rather baser means of that Roman soldier named Panthera.* When Mary’s pregnancy and infidelity had been discovered, she was convicted of adultery and “driven out by her husband.” 17 If that feels shocking, Celsus had barely begun. The divine scriptures were, he said, rubbish; the story of the Garden of Eden was “very silly” and Moses “had no idea” about the true nature of the world. 18 The “prophecies” that had predicted Jesus’s coming were also nonsense, since “the prophecies could be applied to thousands of others far more plausibly than to Jesus.” Judgment Day also came in for scorn. How precisely, asked Celsus, was this going to work? “It is foolish of them also to suppose that, when God applies the fire (like a cook!), all the rest of mankind will be thoroughly roasted and that they alone will survive.” 19 Cherished Christian beliefs were dismissed as being the sort of tales that “a drunken old woman would have been ashamed to sing . . . to lull a little child to sleep.””
C Nixey
6
Hmmm have Christians gotten bad press or are they and all others who tout their own religion as the "real" religion the most toxic people who denounce reality, science, and the actual teachings of jesus christ? Religion has never done much but guide people to kill, judge, deride and hate. Time to be done with all of it.
34
Here is the deal and it is quite simple to get.
It's a legal thing, not a mystical thing.
Under Hebrew law, if a maiden is raped, and she yells out and fights off, then under law it is as if the rape never happened. Woe unto the maiden who does not repel the attacker!
So coupled with the old tales of Mary getting raped by a Roman centurion named Panther (something we know that occupying armies do), the idea that Mary fought back meant she kept her virgin status - despite having delivered a child as a result of the attack.
As you can see, a great many such virgin births occurred in accordance with law.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
22
First and only qustion "Was Jesus real"?
Merry Christmas believers and us heathens alike.
10
If this "God" is so powerful and miraculous, why does he allow the murderous slaughter throughout history? If he is responsible for one, he is also responsible for the other. When children are murdered in Florida or Sandy Hook, and children starve in Yemen, isn't this all powerful god responsible for that? And why not? I can anticipate your answer, but what's the use? You will believe in this silly nonsense in any case.
45
When Evangelicals are die-hard Trump supporters, I question about their faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible. When the evangelicals are the biggest supporters of wars, I hthink they are fraud. The evangelicals vote for the politicians who favor cutting Medicaid, food stamps and other entitlements for the poor, then I think Jesus would never like it. After viewing Acces Hollywood video , Jesus Christ would never support Trump. Teaching of Jesus are just opposite to the teachings of evangelical churches. Jesus would never support NRA but our Bible Belt voters are crazy for guns. Confusing!
39
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11894571/Rise-of-the-virgin-birth-four-IVF-clinics-admit-taking-on-such-cases.html
Virgin births, while relatively uncommon, are much less extraordinary than many suppose. A miracle, yes, but no more so than any other birth. Moreover, there's nothing in the technology involved that would preclude it occurring 2000 years ago.
The strangest thing reported in the linked article, much stranger than virgin women giving birth this way, is that there were supposently only 9(!) registered sperm donors in Great Britain.
1
So Christians have gotten bad press . Really !! So let's see most evangelical Christians voted for a womanizer/thief/lier/and in general louse. Those are just facts not alternative facts just the plain facts. Christians have abandoned their faith in voting for whom they did . they are their own bad press.
41
I guess if Trump can be transmogrified into a moral man by evangelicals then Jesus could certainly have been born to a virgin. Hallelujah, our Supreme Court is saved!
24
Hmm. No spermatozoa involved in a virgin birth so no possibility of a Y chromosome in the offspring.
I think the professor here is saying Jesus was biologically a woman. Maybe a woman who identified as a man. So Jesus was transgender.
Lots of revelations here. Somehow I suspect the narrow-minded professor intended none of them.
28
Hey guys, excuse me, but who are you talking about? Jesus? who was that? Such a divine character where are his writings. Oh, you say, he didn't write anything. Wow! Then who did? Mark, you say. Okay, where was Mark during the whole Jesus episode? Err, Rome.
So had did Mark communicate with this fellow in the Middle East. Oh yeah, I forgot he was a divine character and must have communicated via an IPhone. Really.
Most of the attributes attributed to J. were originally attributed to Mithras one hundred years earlier.
Why do we constantly need to seek out cults to find God, when all you have to do is look inside yourself. There's a mirror in all our brains (conscious unconscious). If you look hard and long, Meditate examining you will find what you are looking for. It's called TRUTH. There may be only one TRUTH, or there may be many. It doesn't matter, as long as what you seek in life is the TRUTH. If that's what you strive for you will find it. Never mind the malarky spouted by scared and unintelligent folks from thousands of years, ago, they would believe anything that would spare them from the constant hunger, diseases and wars waged by those folks who believed that by succumbing to folk tales, they would be spared such misery. Hey, we do that, even, today. we even send money hither and yon to buy the graces of the divine being. Forget TRUTH, I pray for money and world conquest. Maybe the divinity will , but that's not the TRUTH.
9
When I hear people asserting that the Bible should be taken literally, I think of 2 Corinthians 3:6 -- "the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life".
7
How many of the people here who say that God doesn't exist because there's no "proof" eat gluten-free or follow some other nonsensical, unscientific health fad and will swear by it? People are amazing
5
So irritating to watch as smart people willfully fail to discern between metaphor and reality. Gods have been supposedly impregnating humans throughout our multiple myths to (metaphorically) demonstrate the divinity (or social rank) of humankind. And most of these impregnating myths are, of course, mutually exclusive. What a bunch of hooey.
13
Sorry, all you religious experts. The Gospels were not written by anyone who was alive when Jesus was doing his ministry. The four stories pick for the Gospels were by writers who lived about 70 years after Jesus died, never met Jesus or heard him preach and were chose out of hundreds of accounts about Jesus. They were chosen to portray Jesus the way the committee wanted "Christianity" to be, not necessarily who and what Jesus really was. Jesus was a jew and was preaching mainly to other jews. He was not the "First Christian" because that would mean that he worshiped himself as the "Son of God." Self worship is a mental illness.
So, whatever modern "Christians tell us about Jesus is probably made up to fit the tenant of the particular denomination.
24
The message sent by a God who impregnates a virgin without her consent goes against everything that God represents. The MeToo movement might have something to say about that.
It also says that the created like us may have to rely on a physical contact that we have defined as "sex," but is not good enough for the related to the divine, thus denying its own creation. It is simply a reiteration of a position that such sex is dirty even though all beacons of reason in humanity had to be created with it.
But in the end, the theological question is "Why is it required for only a portion of humanity?"
2
A friend’s son was ill, cancer, she sought advice from her evangelical ministry, abjure medicine, seek healing from the Lord, pray harder, the Lord will heal, after her son passed the preacher said, the will of the Lord .. I have faith in modern medicine, not medieval faith healers ...
14
Dear Professor Craig,
You may want to do a bit of research on the translations of the ancient Hebrew text that are the basis of your holy book.
Regarding Mary being a virgin, you'll fine this. Writers of the original text, regarding references to Mary, used the adjective Alma. When the Greeks translated that text, they translated Alma to mean virgin.
However, it was established long ago that in ancient Hebrew, Alma means "young woman." There is no reference to the "young woman's" sexual history or current status with regard to having had or not having had sexual intercourse.
You may confirm this through any number of language and linguistic studies readily available to anyone.
23
It is depressing in this day and age to read these considerations. No wonder we suffer the outrageous number of tragedies and their insufferable level of savagery and gratuitous pain inflicted by such an ignorant and concided humanity.
Not only is absurd to assume virginal pregnancy but .... who cares?
Then the cross: a torture instrument devised to kill slowly under excruciating pain. And people gung that on their necks .... celebrating death.
The Romans run out of trees while subjecting thousands to such an ordeal! Hundreds of miles were lined up with rotting corpses and here we go glorifying just one who supposedly... return to life.
And wait ... He's coming back!
The most important question or consideration should be: why do you think religion is history's major reason for massacres?
15
Of course Jesus' Mom was a virgin. Is the same as millions of Americans buying the finest in Christmas gifts using their credit card rather than real money.
2
I find the virgin birth of Jane the Virgin on the popular telenovela more plausible than the one this "professor" is defending. His explanation makes absolutely no sense.
9
If 90% of humanity truly believes these myths are real -- if they truly believe in an authoritarian, misogynistic, angry, narcissistic "man-in-the-sky" -- then, frankly, humanity deserves it's imminent extinction, or at least a serious culling of the herd.
23
@Misplaced Modifier Amen.
3
The word virgin in the Hebrew that Mathew, Mark, and Luke spoke meant a woman who has not yet given birth to a child. . These writers merely meant that Yoshua, the Hebrew pronunciation of Jesus's name, was her first born child. I am sorry to remove the mysticism from the word virgin, but miss-translations over the years have changed the meaning of the word.
16
"Historically speaking, the story of Jesus’ virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke and is utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology or Judaism. So what’s the problem?"
This is unmitigated hogwash.
"Hogwash or hog wash may refer to: Pig swill, food for pigs in liquid or partly liquid form
Slang for "nonsense", communication that lacks any coherent meaning".
Jesus Christ seems to have been a pretty good guy. Kind, gentle, and loving.
Then the christians got hold of him.
23
Mr. Kristoff so easily accepted the claims of Craig, claims that invoke biblical scholars yet none are named. The last section sounds as if Craig were in front of Fox News camera.
17
Mr. Kristof, when will you question the tenets of other religions, including Islam?
8
The logic of backing up one myth with another myth is rather amusing. And to summarily dismiss other myths in other cultures... well, enough said...
But good for you for writing such a column.
8
Kristoff gave this professor a very easy ride
I am not unsympathetic to Christianity but this kind of soft questioning get us nowhere
9
In the struggle to make the Manger Moment sexless, therefore clean, Mary had to be with-child/without-sex. Human, sure, but not 'biologically'. No test tubes or petri dishes, so call it a miracle (but there's a tiny chance of it happening biologically). The Magi must indeed have gaped.
Then, about 19 centuries later, Mary became a popular sidebar for a church losing most of its credibility, so we had Marianism. The latter proposed that Mary was 'born without sin', i.e., was a goddess, like, say Athena. That could buttress the sexless conception of Jesus. Oh for pity's sake, moaned the Cardinals, you must be kidding. Oh no, said the pope of the era, my pollsters say this is good stuff. The Marianists said Yay! The cardinals held their noses and put their hands up to vote Yay. This sheds a better light on Xian theology, and one wonders where the good professor got his books.
9
Paul's religion succeeded with the Romans because of their mythology, full of sons of gods. Judaism rejected the idea and was set aside by Christianity. Craig should have stayed out of it.
9
Honestly, Christians have gotten bad press because their rampant hypocrisy deserves it. Are the gays not the lepers of today? Jesus supposedly told us to love his killers. I doubt he'd tell us to hate anyone, but Christians spread plenty of hate in his name. Bad press or self-inflicted wounds?
18
"virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke and is utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology or Judaism"
I'm sorry, this is blatantly false -- i.e., the opposite is true.
Examples
In the Greco-Roman world, sexual relations between the "gods" and a "human" woman were believed to be common occurrences. The Roman historian Livy (who died a few years before Jesus' ministry) wrote an extremely popular history of Rome whereby the twin founders--Romulus
and Remus--were born of a virgin. Their mother Silvia was a Vestal Virgin who was fathered by the Greco-Roman god Mars.
Zeus reportedly fathered the Greek heroes Hercules and Perseus.
The god Aesclepius had fathered Aratus of Sicyon, while in the disguise of a serpent.
Real, historical figures were also purported to have been fathered by the gods.
--Alexander the Great was said to have been fathered by Zeus.
--Pythagorus, Plato, and even the first emperor of the Roman Empire were believed to have been fathered by Apollo.
--According to Plutarch, Alexander the Great's mother dreamed that she conceived when a thunderbolt struck her womb. Per Plutarch (CONVIVIAL DISPUTATIONS), "the fact of the intercourse of a male god with mortal women is conceded by all."
The term "son of God likely" was likewise popular in this same Greco-Roman culture.
23
Sorry, Mr Krystoff. Still not doin' it for me.
12
I just cannot get past the whole thing that God sacrificed his son to himself, to appease himself. And, all the innocent blood sacrifices required in the Old Testament. And kids with cancer.
18
Most likely he was born to a teenage Palestinian Jewish girl named Miriam who was raped by an older kinsman but protected by her betrothed Joseph, an honorable man. If you have questions about the Christian faith, then ask them in a more straightforward manner, please.
9
@Big Ten Grad There are historical references to a Roman soldier being the father.
4
Many children think that their births came through magic, as their moms must be virgins. Like with Jesus, it is highly unlikely, no matter how much children want to believe it.
5
Craig: "Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence),...."
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus!
That really says it all but I cannot help myself ...
Craig pretends to be scientific by cherry-picking sciency sounding stuff then emphasizing gaps in our understanding to appeal to common sense to make you feel you have a better [religious] answer when you really do not.
He says he emphasizes science and rationality but really does only the latter. Lies/falsehoods can be rational and logical or to seem to be. Craig relies on that phenomena.
Real science is our best process to distinguish real truth from things masquerading as truth.
It rightly forces our presuppositions, emotions, and "common sense" to take a back seat so we can uncover real truth and admit to what we do not really know.
Rather Craig tries to force those things to the forefront of our thinking.
He is lying about what he is doing re: “reasonable faith”.
I end saying his disingenuous use of 18th Century philosopher David Hume is obnoxious. Pre- Darwin, DNA, quantum mechanic, nuclear physics, exploratory astronomy of course he missed some nails. Of course 20/21st people have done better!
John Earman's 2000's premise was Hume could have done even better with the tools/info he had at hand. NOT that Hume had it all wrong or that we should believe in miracles! Again Craig is misleading and disingenuous.
[Intentionally] Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus!
14
What a bunch of nonsense. This mans conviction is admirable but it doesn’t “prove” anything. All the Gods we have created before Jesus were just as valid as Christianity.
11
Oh dear me... Christians are getting a bad rap because of the media.
That statement belies the fact that in today's social media-fueled information industry, "blowhard" Christians own their media channels. The mainstream media doesn't go looking for these hypocritical blowhards.... they are the Christian leaders of today!
Sadly, more Evangelical Christians follow these hypocrites than live by the tenets of Reasonable Christianity espoused by Professor Craig. Blaming the media for the rise of Hypocritical Christianity may be convenient but it is inconveniently inaccurate.
I suggest Christians belly up to their responsibility to fix Christianity using Luke 4:23 as their guide... heal thyself.
7
We can cast stones at those who believe; we can steal baby Jesus from his nativity scene; but we can never impact the world like this one single individual. Surely the NYT can find a better topic for its pages on the Sunday before Christmas than mounting a challenge to the greatest man who has ever walked the face of the earth.
4
There are a lot of rhetorical sleights of hand in Mr. Craig's responses to these questions, I'll stick with just one very typical one:
"...you think science is somehow incompatible with belief in miracles... David Hume’s famous argument against miracles is today recognized, in the words of philosopher of science John Earman, as “an abject failure.” No one has been able to do any better."
One can literally argue anything with that 'logic'. It says nothing about the argument itself. Rather, it takes a circuitous journey through appeals to authority and credibility. The breakdown: somebody famous used that argument, another credible person said that person was wrong, so the argument is false, or at least debatable.
2+2=4? Well, (famous mathematician A) said it was true in a book, (famous mathematician B) said that book was wrong, so 2+2=4 is wrong. A well-used 'negative credibility' variation: Hitler said 2+2=4, and Hitler was wrong, so the equation is wrong. A modern version: Chuck Schumer said 2+2=4, but he is a liar and a partisan democrat, so the equation is a lie and a political attack on republicans.
Notice this rhetoric also removes the issue at hand from any chance of consideration, since few know what Hume or Earman actually argued, or what parts of the argument were challenged. And nobody has 'done any better'? What does that even mean? This is why we need to teach critical thinking in grammar school, so we all know how to spot this kind of sophistry.
9
Wow! Mr Craig is exactly whats wrong with religious pop-academia today. I'd rather the die hard, blow-hards of yesteryear, the "this way or no other way" moralists, as there was at least some historical contextual honesty, tempered by the historical perspective of their blatant scientific ignorance, to allow for getting thru their arguments.
This is nothing but typical equivocating absurdity. From a college philosophy professor! Its like a Sunday school diatribe for the stupid.
He makes every bad Xtian argument sound even worse. I'd hate to have to sit thru his lectures if this is a taste of them.
The OT is wrapped in figurative myth, while the NT is journalistically sound as an accounting of the reality on the ground and the heavens. What? When no honest scholar can say we can ever know who actually wrote the Gospels, let alone the first drafts of what would later became the actual Gospels. (other then John and he wasn't an eyewitness!)
But Craig is here pretending that academia has it all neatly wrapped up and with a bow!? Come on! His answers sound like a dopey theology student's first day of class answers in a rigorous Origins of Gospels 101 class. Which I suggest Craig takes!
He doesn't insist on the inerrancy of Scripture, re: Judas's death, but he does re; Mary's virginity? According to Matt and Luke, who never knew/heard of Mary before they met Jesus?!
Re; his point Hume and Earman. Lol! Philosophers are good at only one thing. Disagreeing with each other.
12
If he actually existed, who cares about this silly myth?
2
There is more wisdom and thoughtfulness in these comments than the utter silliness espoused in the interview. What a waste of time.
17
Great questions. Ridiculous answers.
7
Since we're having a sophist-philosophical argument regarding what is considered to be a miraculous event - while - at the same time - trying to fit into the liberal-progressive-intellectual ideals of the Times' readership - how about this --
Had God - being who S/He is - chosen to have Jesus somehow miraculously enter the world through the body of Joseph - rather than Mary -- then questioning the idea of a "Virgin Birth" through the body of a man would be considered an act of politically-incorrect, anti-gay aggression - while being an affront to the entire LGBQT community --
It's fun to have these types of "serious" arguments designed to indulge one's sense of acedemic intellectualism --
Here's another option --
Either you believe - or you don't believe --
Sometimes it's really just that simple -
Merry Christmas to all...
"...God created the universe..." You cannot start an explanation of a belief and assume it to be factual.
13
If you look at the pain and suffering of the innocent--like children--from disease, a believer is obliged to say that God has adopted a pseudonym. His real name is Satan. Further, to dismiss unprovoked evil by saying we can never understand the ways of God is to become Satan's accomplice.
6
Part of my problem with Christianity is that Mary was impregnated by God without her knowledge or consent. This has always made the conception of Jesus seem like some sort of cosmic version of date-rape.
12
The fact that this dive into mythology was treated by the New York Times as an actual discussion on whether it's real than on WHY WOULD ANYONE LITERALLY BELIEVE THIS is a sign of a serious and dangerous problem in our country.
Stop legitimizing magical thinking. Please stop giving these folks a platform unless it's to examine why people still need absurd myths about a santa Claus in the sky who will decide football games.
9
So many people here commenting claim to be atheists, without acknowledging that that is also a belief. As an agnostic, I just don’t know. Is there a G-d, isn’t there one, I just don’t know. How could I. But that does not mean I believe that there is no g-d. To believe that requires faith.
2
“Then, about fifty years later, everything changed. Suddenly, in around AD 170, a Greek intellectual named Celsus launched a monumental and vitriolic attack against the religion. It is clear that, unlike the other authors who have so far written about it, Celsus knows a lot about it. He has read Christian scripture—and not just read it: studied it in great detail. He knows about everything—from the Creation to the Virgin Birth and the doctrine of the Resurrection. It is equally clear that he loathes it all and in arch, sardonic and occasionally very earthy sentences, he vigorously rebuts it. The Virgin Birth? Nonsense, he writes; a Roman soldier had gotten Mary pregnant. 9 The Creation is “absurd”; the books of Moses are garbage; while the idea of the resurrection of the body is “revolting” and, on a practical level, ridiculous: “simply the hope of worms. For what sort of human soul would have any further desire for a body that has rotted?” “
Quoted from C Nixey
2
What a joke... to believe fiction like the Bible as anything other than an elaborate ruse for elites to control the masses with bells, singing, incense and other superstitious mumbo jumbo. Marx was right: religion is the opiate of the masses.
10
Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence)
No you don’t. You have no evidence at all. Neither do I have any evidence that it does not exist.
However you are claiming existence without proof and then dreaming up a load of rubbish due to its existence, like virgin birth.
11
William Craig is not a refined theologian. He is a closed-minded ignorant Fundamentalist. Interview Bart Ehrman about this issue, instead.
13
There is no connection between science and faith. Science and faith based religions are exact opposites of each other. Good Grief, there is absolutely no scientific evidence of virgin birth...how inane.
5
This is all lovely apologist propaganda, but what does the Professor have to say about the clear intent of evangelical Xians to destroy American democracy and replace it with a sharia-style theocracy?
I'll wait.
Beanie
9
sorry. Christians borrowed the virgin birth from other, older religions.
12
If intelligent life is found on another planet and they are all atheist|agnostics, we'll know that they are peaceful and civilized. Religion, with it's endless bizarre & fraudulent citations of divine intervention, is testimony to the primitivism of the human species. I'll opt for the 'miracle' of modern medicine in lieu of virgin birth or candles burning for 8 days or whatever.
4
There is a vast difference between thoughtful Christians who practice Jesus' teachings, and cult-like, freakish adherents of Christianity-- or any other religion.
In some communities of that period a pious religious woman wan called virgins. That had nothing to do with being physically a virgin.
Ask a biblical historian and he/she will tell you that that the phony virgin birth story and it is a story wasn't made up until 200 yrs after Jesus' death. IF they had made the claim back in Jesus' time they would have laughed at the claim.
5
@joe Hall
And perhaps crucified...
1
The very first statement - that immaculate conception is unique to Christianity - is demonstrably false from even the most casual reading of pre-Judaic religious myths. I am at a loss as to why the Times gives valuable column inches to unserious, bad-faith actors time after time after time.
12
Did it ever occur to anyone that these Bronze Age men were afraid menstruating women and the fantasy of a virgin birth was their appealing fantasy?
7
Mary is married to Joseph and remained virgin? That would mean Joseph and Mary never consummated. And in that case, if she had Jesus via virgin birth wouldn't Joseph wonder?
4
The Hebrew Bible is “mytho-history", except for Isaiah 9:6, which is purported to predict Jesus the Messiah.
2
LOL! Reminds me of the Philip Roth story! What was it called?
Next column idea for Kristof, go to a Chevy dealership and ask which is a better buy a Ford or a Chevy.
14
The term "hung" himself, which Judas did, means he impaled himself, a form of execution when a someone is "hung" over a sharpened stake, the mid section on the point.The weight of the body brings it down the stake till it "burst open". It is a slow death, by the way.
If Mary was only 14 years old when she had Jesus what does that make god?
5
The epic of Gilgamesh is the original virgin birth . Others are Assyrian-Nanna, Hittite-Teshyb, Egyptian- Isis, ect. There are early flood stories too. The first volume of Joseph Campbell's works about myths analyzes the foundations of such allegories.
7
I fail to understand why reasonable people in this world continue to give this man shared time on a debate stage or ink in an article. What a load of nonsense.
6
If God can create all these miracles why doesn't God end War and Poverty ?
7
Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman, Robert Price all historians all experts on ancient Greek language and the Bible have had debates vs William Lane Craig which are worth watching on YouTube
4
Surely you can find some Zoroastrians and Mithraists to rationalize their "faiths" as well, and there's got to be an old-school Roman somewhere who has some views on the biological practicalities of Leda and the Swan.
It's fine for you to waste your time on your days off, Nicholas, but your byline carries some weight.
I read this post-facto rationalization of "Why We Accept Insane Assertions About A First Century Loony" based on the fact your name was on it.
Careful, Icarus....
8
Youngsters from 8 to 12 learn at this time of the year that Santa is not real. Great. So why don't we eliminate the rest of the magic men in the sky and stop living in fairy tales? The simple answer is that religion is the greatest money making scam in history.
Happy Holidays.
7
never mind the "virgin" births, check out all the others if you want to see a disaster!
1
Every god is man-made for his necesities.
3
My question is: Did god obtain Mary's consent to be violated? Also: How is holy communion not ritualized cannibalism?
Last, the one that got me expelled from confirmation class: Who did Adam's children "know" to propagate the human species?
10
“But then it occurred to me that for a God who could create the entire universe, making a woman pregnant wasn’t that big a deal!”
And yet he also facilitates genocide, infanticide, and human suffering on epic scales of barbarism without lifting a godly finger to stop it.
10
You hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draws close to me with their mouth, and honours me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
This is still true these 2000 years later.
2
I really dislike this person claiming evidence where there is none and claiming no precedents where there are plenty. About virgin birth: just look at Egyptian mythology alone -- which 'Jesus' and his followers would have been aware of: Mut-em-ua, the virgin queen of Egypt; (2) Hathor of Egypt; (3) Isis -- perhaps the closest model to Mary; (4) in Greek tradition pre-dating christianity you have Nana, mother of Attis and Persephone you carried Dionysus in virgin birth to Zeus. As "evidence", this clown claims similarities across stories written by evangelists -- some 70 years after Jesus's death! -- while glossing over inconsistencies. Jesus himself was nothing but a clone of Egypt's Osiris -- who was a 'Prince of Love', who perished and was resurrected, who had 12 disciples, who was the son of Sun-Ra (and therefore of virgin birth), and to whom holy communions were held, where wine represented his blood. The Osiris myth influenced numerous Mid-Eastern religions thousands of years before Christianity copied the figure. And, nice coincidence that Jesus was made to be a 'son of a god' at the time when the Roman world was being ruled by another -- Augustus, the adopted son of the deified Julius Caesar. Again, this "professor" is just a clown who hides behind the pretence of using scientific-sounding terms such as "evidence". This clown knows nothing about the scientific method.
10
God exists because man is afraid of death. Do away with that fear and religion will be gone by dinner time and god will be gone by the next morning
9
Leave it to the New York Times to write an article questioning whether Jesus was born to a virgin. And around Christmas when millions upon millions celebrate the birth of Jesus. As a Catholic, I find this very offensive and very insulting.
1
Cool -- the guy is delusional....
4
Citing the performance of exorcisms as definitive proof of Christ’s divinity ranks with expertise in breeding unicorns, or in saddle-making for dragons.
10
"virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke and is utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology or Judaism" - This is rubbish. There are many parallels with the Egyptian Horus, among others. See for example https://www.lawofattractiongps.com/not-just-jesus-other-virgin-births/ There are plenty of other easily found sources for similar info.
And... "Why should we suspend our emphasis on science and rationality just because of weakly evidenced, false claims in other religions?" What an arrogant jerk. Miracles are by definition irrational and defy scientific explanation or they would not be miraculous. If you want to stand on science and rationality, as against faith, Christian miracles are no less "weakly evidenced, false claims" than those of other religions. Believe what you will, tell us it's a matter of faith, that's fine, but don't give us this pap.
3
I am puzzled that Dr Wiilam Lane Craig didn’t support his argument with the fact that another religion.i.e. Islam, through the Quran teaches its followers that Jesus was born to a Virgin and of his miracles!
1
Virgin birth is another term for immaculate conception. A short list of antonyms for immaculate includes defiled, dirty, filthy, immoral, impure, sinful, tainted and unclean. Why would the church want to imply that normal sex is all of these things?
3
is it (really) important ?
2
In its oldest form, the Apostles’ Creed goes back to at least 140 A.D.
It states as follows:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And in Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary, Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead, and buried. He descended into hell; The third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; The Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints; The Forgiveness of sins; The Resurrection of the body, And the Life everlasting. Amen.
Notice the linchpin "believe."
The mistake made by many is to elevate what is only "belief" to "knowledge" because a belief is not subject to objective verification and one person's "belief" can never be judged as superior to another's.
One should never state, for example, the virgin birth as fact, or attempt to explain it as empirically provable or explainable.
One either has or does not have faith in it as a central tenet of one's belief system. And, neither the believer or non-believer is superior to the other.
Thus, the better answer to the question, "Was Jesus born to a virgin?" is "I do not know, but I [believe or do not believe] so."
6
Mr Nicholas Kristof, apostle Matthew says Judas hanged himself, and apostle Peter in Acts 1:18-19 says that Judas "fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out", obviously because the the rope broke and Judas plummeted to the bottom of the cliff, striking the ground with such force that his body burst. Happens. You would do well to accept the harmony and truth in the books of Matthew and Acts, recognizing that a second account of an event will add additional detail that was omitted by the first writer
Bull Ship.
Religion is for people who want to believe.
Yesterday at childcare two tiny girls pointed out to me that the 15" Santa doll suspended from a display cord was 'not the real Santa' - before one of them told me seriously that she knew that Santa was not real - it was actually someone dressed up.
Societies tend to comprise people willing to suspend disbelief in order to conjoin in some social event/s. Tradition - dress-ups - you be the bad guy - we'll pretend ... so it is with religion.
A man with a white beard living in the sky - yeah sure - not. But let's pretend - then we can all sit together and feel like a group that cares about each other - we won't feel so lonely and afraid about tomorrow if we share this today.
Christmas is a potpourri of ancient winter solstice festivals where the Norse burnt logs for 12 days, and Roman Saturnalia where they decorated houses with red and green
Emperor Constantine of Rome absorbed those existing traditions into his chosen new religion of Christianity to ease its acceptance - otherwise the population might have resisted with 'yeah nah' - so - just continue the way you have been - we'll just call it something else ...
Same with the bible - a chosen assemblage of scrolls done some hundreds of years after Jesus died - in order to ensure the men's preference for continuing their chosen slant on religion. Excluding women worked for the men - until now sexual abuse by priests threatens to tear down that whole edifice.
7
Another example of the Catholic faith belittling women---what woman can live up to a virgin birth?
9
William Craig believes and thinks virgin birth was real but he also a real believer of Science unlike other 'weak' faith based religions. Certainly. And of course, Darwin's theory of Evolution, Universe creation with origins in a Black hole, Earth is round, the Earth moves round the Sun and not vice versa etc. etc. are just hogwash. But faith can move mountains. Perhaps that is why we are discovering bones of pre-historic humans, the knowledge that there is something called DNA and the Chimp shares 99% of human DNA,infertility clinics are mushrooming in the modern age and only zygotes in a petri-dish to create a complete human, already a fact in the animal kingdom including the multiplicating single cellular amoeba. We now know why an apple falls, cars, electricity, aeroplanes, have laser, ballistic missile systems, satellites and GPS, zapping rogue cells. Let's face science is very obliged to faith and religion. But from an XY rib to an XX only human? I guess faith-based religions are way ahead and Science cannot catch up.
1
Certainly, we can all believe in miracles. However, today we have scientific miracles called artificial insemination.
1
The good Dr lost me with the Matthew and Luke “independent corroboration” of the virgin conception. I just wanted to ask him if Matthew and Luke were actually present at the conception. Otherwise, their corroboration is nothing more than hearsay. And, of course, the whole conversation of the virginal conception was moot from the beginning. Once you believe that a single being, whether supreme or otherwise, created the universe then all bets are off. You can believe anything at that point.
7
Here is an attempt to engage in a logic-based discussion about something based on faith. In even such a discussion, let alone an attempt to defend positions in a debate, reason and faith merely cancel out each other. Craig asks, "So what's the problem?" In Craig's comments in defense of a "Given" based on "good evidence," even just here he confuses reliability ("independently attested") with validity. People can independently attest to the moon being made of green cheese but completely invalidly. (Also comes to mind the many "flat earth society"--FES--members, BTW.) That's just one problem. Craig repeatedly merely dismisses Kristof's questions intended to challenge beliefs, such as referring to "in-house discussion" (shades of such among the FES members) and unspecified "evidence" or at least confusion in mentioning it (see above). As well, Craig uses diversion (baseless rebuttal) by simply throwing things back at Kristof, lecturing him while in effect saying "That's your problem." Fundamentally, with all of Craig's almost outrageously illogical commentary, he does make my point. Such "reasoning" reveals what is actually left in its place--faith. Even a "reasonable faith" is honestly such because it just explains why someone would use faith alone to believe, without wanting to rely on any material evidence. It is any citizen's right, additionally being "reasonable" because it does not involve anything dangerous.
"False claims in other religions"!?
I have read that belief in a god can and praying to him, her or it can cure diseases like cancer. To me, this doesn't seem far from our pagan ancestors believing that whatever gods they prayed to were all powerful.
Let's face it, all religions are the same. They are a bunch of made up hocus-pocus. I wouldn't care but more people have been killed in the name of religion and continue to be killed in its name than for any other reason in the history of world.
Essentially people are killed for not believing in the same myths as others.
4
Any religion that depends on the veneration of a woman’s sexuality or lack thereof...is no religion for me. Virginity or lack thereof is no indication of sin, impurity or anything else that the “son of god” need be protected from.
5
Interesting that Kristof seems to seek evangelicals as a foil for his earnest if sophomoric questions. Wondering why he avoids talking to progressive mainstream Christian leaders and scholars who respect science, (we used to say we do not park our brains at the door of the church). Dr. Sharon Watkins, National Council of Churches and CCDC, Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton, ELCA or Presiding Bishop Michael Curry of the Episcopal Church USA. Or Dr Serene Jones of Union Theological Seminary and so many others. The late Ray Brown, Roman Catholic Scholar wrote a well respected now classic book called "The Birth of the Messiah". Bible stories from a pre enlightenment past are interpreted for post enlightenment thoughtful Christians: this an art and a science. Mature Christianity understands this and we don't trivialize our faith with such silliness. Dietrich Bonhoeffer would say those with loving questions are "anonymous Christians." Check out important, brilliant but perhaps overlooked by activist scholars. Cynthia Moe Loebeda, Resisting Evil, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite (former President of Chicago Theological Seminary-UCC). You could have fun reading her #occupythe bible; for even more fun her recent mystery novels. Currently, I am reading Elaine Pagels new book, Why Religion? Thoughtful people within and on the edges of Christianity offer important insights. Emilie Townes, Kelley Brown Douglas, Rita Nakishima Brock, many more in the mainstream worthy of your attention.
1
In-vitro fertilization was around two millennia ago?
Hmm, the professor just equated Jesus with all those modern frauds perpetrating miracle-working and exorcisms - anyone remember Jim Jones? - and those who do not believe the Earth is round, goes around the sun and we're not at the center of the universe is going against the evidence - just look around - the Earth is flat and everything revolves around us. Puh-leeze!
"consensus among historical Jesus scholars" is like saying the consensus of white supremacist scholars is that whites are superior to all other races.
The foundation of religiously based oppression is the belief that their religion is the only right one. The arrogance to state "weakly evidenced, false claims in other religions" is no different than the "weakly evidenced, false claims in" your own religion, professor.
Perhaps Tlaloc - Aztec God of rain - is THE true God given the miracle of rain in the dry season when it's statue was moved to the anthropology museum grounds in Mexico City. Indeed, the Mayan religion is more believable than the professor's primitive religion, given how mathematically precise astronomical observations, calendars and numerical system that was a foundation of their religion. Indeed, Star Wars' the Force is as legitimate and valid as any other religion - there is "evidence" on screen.
Great respectful questions asked to a pathetically small mind with "an abject failure" of reason.
Merry Winter Solstice! M the Force be with you.
1
It should be noted that when Catholics celebrate the Feast of The Immaculate Conception in early December, it is not a feast of the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Rather, it is the celebration that Mary was born without any stain of sin on her soul including and especially the sin known as Original sin. Catholics baptize their children to remove the stain of Original sin from their children's soul. Many people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, confuse the Immaculate Conception with the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
3
"Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence)" First, there is no evidence at all, let alone good evidence. Nor is there any good evidence that Jesus actually existed. But if God did design and create the universe, is getting someone else's woman pregnant really the best plan he could come up with? Why not just create Jesus as an adult. Or better yet, why not just implant Jesus's message into everyone's brain and skip the whole Jesus thing altogether? All of it is such incredible nonsense why waste time thinking about it.
5
Science has been in the last centuries a nightmare for religions, but there will be always warriors decided to fight the evidence, or at list to smooth it. We must not discuss faith. It is beyond our understanding. But we should take for what it is: a man made magical mystery tour.
5
Yeah. I’ve had that feeling that you check your beliefs in math, science, and logic at the doors to a church. It’s like you go in a rational person and come out capable of supporting Trump. On the other hand, Wordsworth would see the fantastical universe(s) science opened to us as an indication of divine presence. Also, where do you turn when the only rationale science can give us for life is to propagate the species. That goes against the feeling most humans have that something transcends the physical. Granted, absolutely no accepted science supports this. But the feeling remains.
1
Re: "Historically speaking, the story of Jesus’ virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke and is utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology or Judaism."
Not so. Greek, Hindu, Celtic and many other world mythologies include stories of Virgin births, which is part of the reason Christianity spread as easily as it did. The Christian religion is different from others in some ways, but the virgin birth is not one of them.
9
This is a terribly disappointing and superficial series of responses. If this is what passes for Christianity today, well, what a fall form grace. St. Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas...and Mr. Craig? Sad. To begin with, the argument from design may prove the existence of a god, but not the specific God of the Bible. A deist creator who sat the wheels in motion and went away makes much more sense in the context of natural sciences than the benevolent busybody who constantly intervenes in human affairs. Second, the Hebrew Bible contains straightforward history, like the Book of Kings, so it’s not different from the Christian gospels. Third, I can’t even count a number of middle-eastern gods and godlings born or a virgin or otherwise miraculously conceived. Sorry but it’s not just non-persuasive but so shallow as to insult all real believers everywhere. And merry Xmas to you all!
8
Some perspective is absent: members of the fastest growing faith and the second largest religion after Christianity are not simply arguing or discussing philosophy. Shia and Sunni are killing each other every day over basic issues they still have.
3
Remember that people from the BC era pretty much had no developed science and were highly superstitious and fearful of just about anything they didn’t understand. So what do you do in those cases? You make up stories in an attempt explain what’s happening. Thankfully science doesn’t do that. Religion, not just Christianity, is patriarchal, so it’s not surprising they have an explanation for the birth.
4
Mr. Kristof,
You couldn't have found a more disingenuous--or perhaps more charitably, confused--dialogue partner on this matter. Any scholar with a sophisticated understanding of early Christian literature and history would scoff at his contention that some sort of historical "evidence" exists for the virgin birth.
13
Curious that so much effort is spent in Matthew and Luke to establish a PATERNAL genealogy from Abraham (Matthew) / Adam (Luke) if, after all, his father was “God” rather than Joseph.
Even more curious that in the 21st century there are people treating this stuff with more seriousness than a Harry Potter story.
12
The esteemed Professor Craig lost me in his first pronouncement, declaring that "for a God who could create the entire universe . . . making a woman pregnant wasn't that big a deal !"
"Making a woman pregnant" is just so, well, arrogantly stated and reveals his implicit attitude of superiority over females. Ugh.
Also, too, having dabbled in Western Philosophy and Theology, to me it seems that these fields are dominated by such males who are, more than anything else, haunted by their fear of their own deaths. Perhaps Professor Craig should consider some sort of mind expanding mushrooms for a broader perspective.
5
"Historically speaking, the story of Jesus’ virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke "
And then:
"I don’t insist on the inerrancy of Scripture."
Ah - the wonderful world of theology.
8
There are all sorts of " virgin births" in a variety of mythologies, including Greece and Egypt. Now the old Testament and new Testament have a different narrative style so one is literal and the other mytho-historical? Couldn't read past that, but I am sure it does not get any better.
5
"But then it occurred to me that for a God who could create the entire universe, making a woman pregnant wasn’t that big a deal! Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence), an occasional miracle is child’s play."
Is there a subversive intent to this column? Mr. Craig's cheery, childlike responses make his title, professor of philosophy, farcical.
5
It's too bad Mr. Kristof didn't ask Dr. Craig this supremely important question:
"Isn't it true that the theology of Jesus-as-Divinity -- and his crucifixion providing redemption for the sins of humanity -- was NOT the understanding of Jesus's original disciples or early Christian sects like the mystical Gnostics? Wasn't that a later interpretation that won out and became Church doctrine due to the proselytizing of St. Paul, and the four subsequently-written and accepted Gospels?"
15
I was raised a Christian as an Episcopalean. As I got older and set out on my own path in the world, I moved towards becoming an agnostic and presently attend humanist meetings. It works for me, so I wish well meaning Christians would stop trying to "rake" me back to their beliefs and leave me be. When they say they will pray for me, I say thank you for your concern. My main creed is the golden rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Most religions follow such a creed. Yes, I still think Christ was a great prophet, but the son of God, no. May we all live in peace with our own beliefs.
10
I suppose that to have faith in the Bible, you have to suspend your disbelief. Why does it even matter if Jesus were born to a virgin? The minister does not really answer that question by referencing miracles. Unanswered was - to paraphrase - "isn't it what the man stood for and preached far more important than some belief in a magical birth?" My grandmother whom I adored, and who attended church regularly, confided to me that she thought the Bible was just "a bunch of stories made up by a bunch of old men". I took it to heart. She was a woman ahead of her time (I am 73).
Why can't we all just have a relationship with the Divine that is personal and does not involve made up doctrines and adherence to archaic canons? Instead, if we all lived by some form of the "Golden Rule" which is pervasive throughout most religions, what a better place this world would be. There is the Divine in truly "doing unto others what you would have done unto you", by just being decent to one another without judgement of the person based on skin color, sex, sexual preference or personal beliefs, (religious or political).
If Christians are getting a bad rap today, it is because of their vociferous judgment of others, and their insistence that we are a "Christian nation" and that their beliefs should be written into law.
7
As an historian, I have to disagree that the Gospels sought to "provide an historically reliable account." Rather, they, like the Roman and Greek sources Dr. Craig compares them to, sought to provide a compelling moral and political story. Written a generation after Jesus's death, the Gospels tell us what a new group, calling themselves Christians in order to distinguish themselves from Jews, wanted their followers to believe about Jesus. The Gospels contain many beautiful sentiments and do tell many compelling stories, but they may or may not provide accurate historical information.
14
I am not a fundamentalist, but I do not ridicule people of faith. The liberals place all of their faith in science and government, two institutions that are subject to change. Religion is not subject to change, it is based upon axioms that are permanent. For many people that provides much comfort. That is no reason to ridicule them as the Left does. Let's enjoy Christmas, after which the Left can resume its battle against the faithful. Peace.
4
"Let's enjoy Christmas..."? As if all who read the NYT are Christians who celebrate Christmas and as if all people with centrist or right-wing political views are Christian.
Enjoy your holiday; and while you are at it, consider that Jesus was the "leftist" of his time.
10
People, who are convinced their book is the best book, should consider that whatever religion they are the majority of people disagree with them.
5
When I was a young, unbelieving child, I always used to question myself how so many people could be fooled, all the time by obvious lies repeatedly told.
As an adult in the age of fake news Trump and fake YouTube videos, I don’t anymore.
12
All a nice story... including that of God. Just a story.
14
Disappointed in both the interviewer and interviewee here.
The claim that virgin birth does not exist in other religious traditions or belief systems is demonstrably false as Joseph Campbell makes clear in his writings and in the PBS show with Bill Moyers.
21
If Mr. Craig is the best (at least in his own mind) spokesman for what amounts to unquestioning belief in fairy tales, no wonder religion is dying. His Ph D in a cockamamie subject -theology- is worth just about as much as a degree from Trump University.
11
World population: 7.7 billion.
Christian population: 2.4 billion.
9
What is the "evidence" for the hypothesis that the universe is the product of "intelligent design"? Surely the good professor has read David Hume's famous "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" [1779], in which the so-called "argument from design" is masterfully skewered. [If not, get a copy -- really good stocking stuffer.]
2
"But then it occurred to me that for a God who could create the entire universe, making a woman pregnant wasn’t that big a deal!"
Ah, made for a good Sunday morning laugh.
15
An aside Dr. Craig: Christians have earned their bad press through hard work, much bamboozling of the poor and uneducated via TV or church, and alignment with the negatives of society, i.e., KKK, white supremists and other hate groups.
I take issue with Prof. Craig's statement that Jesus's birth is "...utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology..." Are you both, Nicholas and the prof., unaware of Zeus going around in guises of rainbows, swans, clouds, etc, and impregnating
a host of women? I could take issue with most of the Bible,
but that really popped out with the fact that you, Nic, didn't contest that statement, as well as several other childish statements....really, this guy doesn't know what the word evidence means.
21
The miracles are the teachings of Jesus, a true religious genius. Everything else smacks of 1st c. religious propaganda. That Craig dismisses other faith traditions as not “evidence” based because somehow the synoptic texts are themselves real evidence shows his intellectual dishonesty. The authors of the gospels were miles and years apart, but they closely read the previous writers and added much of their own imaginings to the earlier works. The only author that breaks from this is John, and his is a very different Jesus, an altogether elevated God-man who does not resemble the earlier versions. Christianity is a difficult religion to accept if you take a good hard look at the “evidence.” It’s simple, and easy to accept if you swallow whole hog the gospel according to Craig.
9
I laugh at the conversation : a true believer in a fairy tale myth attempts to explain a biologically impossible event- a virgin becomes pregnant and the "three wise men" see an opportunity to create a myth which will not die but has NO evidence supporting it. There is NO possibility of any professor of Theosophy to say anything factual about any religion , which is all false.
9
The idea of immaculate conception pre-dates Christianity. Mahabharata, a Hindu epic written about a 1000-years before Christ, describes queen Kunti praying supernatural elements, conceiving immaculately through them, and giving birth to three virtuous, invincible sons. Immaculate conception suggests man’s desire to create God as an entity without any human blemishes or shortcomings. Discussions of immaculate conception are hence largely philosophical since God and his manifestation can only be realized through metaphysical imaginations. Immaculate conception is a spiritual concept – it cannot be materially observed.
22
"Just know that the Christian church is involved not only in defending the sanctity of life and marriage but in a whole range of social issues, such as combating poverty, feeding the homeless, medical care, disaster aid, literacy programs, fostering small businesses, promoting women’s rights and drilling wells, especially in the developing world. Honestly, Christians have gotten very bad press".
Take the above paragraph and send it to the evangelicals. They may learn something about practicing christianity
7
I appreciate the depth of Craig’s work in rebutting physicalist notions of time in relativity theory. It’s some great work that raises legitimate questions. But his first comment here about virgin birth and miracles is just ridiculous and denies the possibility of a naturalistic universe in toto. Far more reasonable to accept that “virgin” meant a different thing in this context: a baby born to a very young mother who hadn’t had her period yet. In other words she has sex before she even had her period, which wasn’t that uncommon during much of human history. There is some historical precedent for this interpretation of “virgin” and I urge Craig and others to look into it.
3
Was Mary a virgin? I remember reading, some years ago, that this was a transcription/translation error in one of the many, many, many translations that the Bible went through over the centuries. As I remember, in the ancient Aramaic, they only had one word for a young girl - virgin, and, while they mean two different things to us, they were the same for the ancient Hebrews. When a "virgin" (our "young girl) became obviously pregnant she was then a full-fledged woman. Most women, in those ancient times, did marry very young - usually as soon as their menstrual cycles started. Twelve to fourteen-year-olds would have been marriage material. So, of course, Mary was a "virgin" until she became obviously pregnant. I'm not sure actual intercourse had anything to do with their "virginity" in the minds of those ancient people. Pregnancy marked your "womanhood" and the end of your "young girl" era.
As for that "bad press" that Christians have been subject to, they have no one to blame but themselves!
11
As I read this interview, I feel that I am reading the transcript of a Monty Python skit.
How can people be this obtuse!
29
This is the kind of hocus pocus that engenders bigotry and wars.
21
This article presents no “evidence” that Mary was a virgin. In fact, it is pretty much impossible to prove that. Think how many men (men wrote the gospels) would like to think that “their” child was born to a virgin.
9
So sad, not giving GOD credit for being all in all, the A-Z that HE rely is . If you do not believe in miracles. Then I suggest you take a look around an see HIS work, in the world we live in today. This tumult we are living in was written long before it has come to pass exactly as written.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
I am not writing this to defend GOD HE does not need my help.The end game is that every knee will bow to HIM. My reason for ever responding to this opinion, is that I suggest everyone limber up!
1
Christians love to tout the virgin birth as a unique event in divine history, but many other mythologies contain stories of similar parthogenisis. Greek gods were frequent lovers and rapists of mortal women, engendering many semidivines who acted as heroes and villains The first Japanese emperor is said to be the son of a God and a mortal woman. The virgin birth is just another tired, trite tale.
14
God is the fire in every cell, the energy in every rock.
Jesus was the embodiment of love, sacrifice and forgiveness.
4
There is no fire inside a cell. And what could you possibly mean by “energy inside a rock”? What a hilariously bad metaphor.
3
Too bad Christopher Hitchens is around to answer this. Few critical thinkers would disagree that his diluted arguments dilutes the title of PhD.
6
@kevin mahoney - Thanks Kevin, I miss Hitch!
3
It strains credibility that belief systems originating more than a thousand years ago are accepted by so many people now, this despite the fact that humans living in those times were ignorant of just about everything. To explain the inexplicable in those times, humans invented supernatural spirits (Gods) and an after life to explain what the world was all about and their place in it. These myths and superstitions that Jesus and Mohammad and others proposed in those and earlier times, despite their immense ignorance, are the basis of current religious faiths that are accepted with absolute certainty by so many due to indoctrination from a very young age from generation to generation. What we are experiencing now is the legacy that ancient superstitions and blind beliefs in supernatural myths, and in an after life, has left mankind with to this day - ignorance, arrogance and intolerance - all for the sake of a comfort blanket. Enjoy reading your bible fantasies. Go figure.
9
Enlightenment belongs to those who simply ignore this useless debate.
14
Christianity is just another mythology. William Lane Craig spreads falsehoods when he claims there is evidence for the events of the bible. There is none. He also maligns non-christians when he dismisses what we donate to charity and other causes. Next time ask him for more verifiable proof of his boasts. Props to you Nick for being a decent guy and covering his nonsense from a positive perspective
7
Thank you Nicholas. I read the other articles too. You respectfully posed questions. They answered. Some points are more convincing than others but for once a conversation about religion feels like an honest dialogue and not a competition to see who is more clever or more right. Be curious, seek out information, arrive at your own temporary conclusion, question your opinion, repeat the process and enjoy the way. Thanks for contributing and inspiring my own path.
2
"So utterly unlike anything in pagan" mythology? Zeus assumed the form of a swan to impregnate Leda; Mary was "told" by a winged creature that she was to bear the son of god. All Christianity did was get the body out of the way (how chaste) and enact the conception through language. It's a marvelous slight of hand. And a telling cultural one. BTW: I think the Jesus myth is a wonderful one.
3
„Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence)”: breathtaking, or pure hutzpa to be more polite.
7
To all the ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’ comments pooh-poohing or debunking this excellent dialogue between Kristof and Prof Craig, I say - bah, humbug!!!
Religion, and in particular Christianity, has been an enabling force in the development of humanity since we came out of the caves. I shudder to think what humanity would be like if we did not have the leveling influence, for good and bad, of religion.
So, to the usual secular rationalist that seem to so be so smug in their know-it-all attitude and letting it be known in these comments, who are basically the Scrooges and Mr Potters of our times - Merry Christmas!!!
1
I am Catholic and will continue to believe that Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary. This is what millions upon millions of us have been taught throughout the centuries and there has been no evidence to the contrary. Merry Christmas.
2
"Historically speaking, the story of Jesus' virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke and is utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology or Judaism." is simply an assertion that is contrary to fact, as any millisecond search on the topic will reveal. If Professor Craig prevaricates in his first response how can you "Believe" his assertions, subjective and reflexive value judgments and opinions? The Christian religion is made up from many bits and pieces of of cults, myths and religions from our ancient past as any comparative religion course will tell
Religious hectoring and manipulation is just another control issue designed to benefit the few at at the expense of the many.
5
The bottom line is that the vast majority of humans simply cannot handle "religion". It was, is and always will be the scourge of the planet.
The professor's smug comments and condescending attitude pretty much sum it up, albeit more politely than most of his ilk.
If, as adults, we need some hocus-pocus to tell us right from wrong then something is seriously (and probably irredeemably) amiss.
7
No. Like most fairy tales, it’s not true; not real. Bibles are books of fairy tales. We live in a real world that is only explained through science. You can believe all the myths you like; science doesn’ care.
8
About “virgin,” the original Aramaic word is “unmarried girl” but does not insist on “never before had intercourse,” as our concept of “virgin” does. That should make some comfortable while making others uncomfortable.
4
Nick, you're doing more harm than you know by giving voice, and implicit credibility, to people who further reinforce these delusional ideas about supernatural beings. I mean, come on, the guy says, "Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence)..." Huh? This further deepens MY dilemma, which is: "Nick, I LOVE so much of what you do as a journalist and humanitarian. But how can I invest in your eye-opening journalism when you endorse this kind of eye-closing silliness?"
8
Craig appears confident that unfounded assumptions, special pleading, top down reasoning and logical fallacies have a place in philosophy. Even though these philosophical red flags are essential to shore up idiotic belief systems, such as most religious paradigms, they don't have a place in philosophy or science.
4
why is a virgin birth so important? I just did some searches and all the answers are circular. One set of arguments came down to the scriptures say so, therefore it must be important. Another set of arguments comes down to the only way to erase original sin would be to conceive a child unlike any other. Another set of arguments comes down to prophecy. But really - it makes no sense. Jesus had other siblings, he grew up a child like any other (he needed food and love and protection). Personally I think it has more to do with traditional society and many people today wanting to treat women very different then men. The Church has 2000 years of male dominance. And part of that dominance has to do with the ownership of wives as property, not people. And nobody wants to say that Joseph was the father of Jesus. 2000 years of excuses and explanations are simply wiped away by the obvious truth. Until we can learn to be more rational we will be stuck in an archaic world filled with self-serving preachers.
3
"Utterly unlike"? Wow... Nick did you really let that go unchallenged? Even a brief wiki search explores miraculous births in essentially all religions. Craig also brushes off the moralizing of evangelicals with a statement of believers caring about social justice? Does the exception prove the rule? For many of us steeped in American evangelicalism this rings hollow. Personally I'm grateful to now live a spiritual life without the hypocrisy and dual standards of modern evangelism.
3
The word "almah" used in Isaiah and translated as "virgin" may also be a mistranslation as the word is also translated as a "young woman of marriage age /in puberty ." Apologies if this has already been discussed; I didn't find it in a quick perusal of the comments.
5
It's quite interesting, the discussion of how the 'virgin birth' statement precludes consideration of the rest of his statements, and how whether mammals can have virgin births, and what kind of person would result, in the sexual biology and preferential sense. We do know that sexuality is a spectrum, physically.
And whether such discussions are 'immoral' in the conventional religious, or 'faith-based' sense.
Of course they are not.
Even in the face of voracious capitalism and capricious and selfish leadership, this style of belief and insistence on the obvious facts is quite horrid. But now I can see why so many people believe in war.
2
“going against the evidence.” So, many years from now if a surviving civilization finds a buried Empire State Building, does that provide evidence for the existence of King Kong?
10
Just goes to show you can't reason with someone whose starting place is a point of irrationality.
I wouldn't describe my self as an atheist. However, anyone who insists they have "evidence" of miracles and divinity is a complete quack. Dr. Craig is even more offensive because he insists his evidence is superior to those of other religions. I don't mind if you believe in miracles. Good for you if that's what gets you through the day.
A rational person though maintains the ability to recognize alternative faiths as equally valid. There is no evidence any more or less convincing than any other when discussing divinity. Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, or Muslims would certainly not characterize themselves as unreasonable faiths. For Craig to assert his own certainty in the matter only acknowledges his own absurdity.
As a case in point, Plutarch himself draws the distinction between history and biography at the beginning of his "Life of Alexander." Theoretically, history is the human accounting of actual events as free from bias as an accountant with a ledger. Biography by contrast is a moral illustration of the individuals character and should not be taken "literally" in the historical sense. The person existed historically however an exact accounting of their life deeds is fundamentally besides the point.
Jesus' encounter with Lazarus is no more factual than Odysseus blinding a demi-god cyclops. Troy really did happen but most of the story is fiction and hyperbole.
5
The only justification that I see in the Scriptures is that it's better than being drunk or being a narcotic addict.Nothing that we believe or do to escape man's inhumanity to man gives us comfort.I've known Priests that are Alcoholics, & still live in fear.We are now legalizing Pot, which seems to be a true escape, without any side effects, If it brings peace to the world, Mr Craig will say that God gave us Cannabis, and natures beauty to give us comfort.
1
Religious people are said to have “faith”and religions are are referred to as “faiths”. The term underscores the basis of belief: absolute “faith” in the existence of the particular supreme being and wisdom of it’s teachings. Faith does not require empirical proof; it is thus unfair to debate a person,of faith by demanding proof.
However, religion is not beyond scrutiny. Adherents of all of the “major” religions, some subtly and some enforced by draconian law, seek to impose their “faith” on those who are non-believers or the skeptical. Our country was founded in part on the concept of religious freedom, that is, each individual entitled to freely observe their “faith.” Today the phrase is code for an excuse to impose a religious belief on a non-believer. Of course, theocracies around the world enforce their beliefs with severe criminal penalties.
So, I won’t ask you to prove what is a matter of “faith”....but don’t demand that I share that faith.
2
Supporting the premise of a virgin birth by stating there is no other mention of this phenomenon in ancient mythology is a rather thin and incorrect argument. In fact, in Greek mythology alone there is an emphasis on gods mingling with human females to produce offspring. Also, we cannot assume something is factual just because there are no other examples offered in other belief systems. This is faulty logic. Of course, if God produced a universe, that same God could produce what we might define as a miracle. That said, if God produced a system which functions by a set of principles (i.e. pregnancy occurs by means of a sperm fertilizing an egg) then can God undo those very principles? Can God create a mountain even God cannot move? All of these quibbles are indeed a matter of belief. Faith is something else entirely and depends on the notion that there are things beyond human comprehension. My guess is that Jesus was born as all of us are born. The necessity of "sanctifying" his birth as being outside the norm follows a tradition of all religions and myths, the numinous must occur "outside" the human experience. It is a lovely story, but the real one most likely is better, albeit less supernatural: Jesus was a man born in occupied Palestine, beloved by earthly parents, visionary and flawed, whose appealing message was to love others as you would yourself, despite their differences. We should heed his words today, a perfect homage to an enlightened human.
Best to clarify what you mean by "occupied Palestine". It was named "Palestine" by its Roman (aka pagan European) occupiers, but it was not called "Palestine" by the people who had occupied it for hundreds, thousands of years before Rome became the domineering (word chosen carefully) force in Europe and parts of West Asia. And let's also remember that neither Christianity nor Islam nor Arabs per se existed at the time. Indigenous Jewish people? That's who the Romans occupied, and crucified.
2
Forty five years ago as a Protestant Peace Corps Volunteer in the Philippines I made a decision to convert to Catholicism. I underwent this conversion under the guidance of a very kindly and wise Irish priest, Father Daffy, who answered my doubts about such questions posed in this editorial by telling me it is a matter of faith. No pulpit pounding, no recriminations, no infliction of guilt, just kind words to encourage my faith. His lesson has sustained me for a lifetime.
91
@Alan from Humboldt County: George Harrison, raised Catholic, rejected faith for a more gnostic view.
15
I've always felt that Christianity was born from the "we need a miracle here" to be taken seriously. Accordingly to give itself much-needed purchase Christians created not one, but two: the virgin birth and the resurrection. Further, might makes right was ruthlessly practiced and systemmatically stomped out gnosticisim which required no intermediary to God.
None has to believe any of these themes/myths to admire the example of Jesus. I remember as a child attending a Baptist-sponsored summer program, my revulsion of the idea that if you weren't Baptist (v. Christian) then you would not go to heaven. Even as a child I was quite sure that Jesus would never have said many of the things attributed to him--and certainly not that.
I do not call myself a Christian. Nevertheless, I'm happy with believing that there was a historical Jesus, who was a social reformer first and foremost. He joins the list of other great spiritual adepts who transcend the slog of dogma and speak to the human spirit.
It seems a waste of time to argue about angels and miracles, but rather more productive to to ask how one's beliefs make him/her a more compassionate being. The insistence by some that right belief is more important than right action reminds me that those who hold such beliefs have no fundamental understanding of the human spirit or of compassion. Why listen to them?
Any practiced belief that fails to embrace compassion is antithetical to what I believe Jesus's message was.
1
During the last two years, I have been trying to understand the Christian concept, which Mr. Craig mentioned, that the death of Jesus overcame "our moral wrongdoing and estrangement from God"; so I have asked approximately a dozen very religious Christians, four of whom have attended Christian schools, to explain this to me, and not a single one has been able to give a coherent explanation. However, recently one individual told me that an explanation of this concept is not important, but rather that the essence of the Gospels is the message Jesus espoused; this seems a reasonable way to approach these issues.
A "miracle" is by definition something that happens beyond all scientific explanation, thus it is an event that violates one or many established rules of physics.
If we accept that a miracle violates, let's say, the second principle of thermodynamics, this would have inconceivable ripple effects on the known universe. For example, an event that reverses entropy would lead to the breakdown of the entire structure of the universe as we know it. Even God could not simply change the rules of the game without the entire game falling apart, because the structure of the entire universe relies on the stability and predictability of the rules of physics. A universe in which laws of physics can be violated would be inherently unstable.
So let's forget about miracles and ancient scriptures written by people who simply considered as supernatural events anything that they were not equipped to understand. Let's talk about Christ as a transformative moral figure by all means, but let's not demean him by characterizing him through the most questionable and least relevant aspects of his life - the supposed "miracles".
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
3
To me, once basic security, food and shelter are found, then the mutual/universal striving to find Purpose creates/reflects the bright power/purpose of we humans.
Alternately, claiming a unique importance of one of thousands of religious tenants adds no value to the effort to live a good life in our Infinity.
2
Who knows what sort of biology based reproductive information was known by rural shepherd girls in tribal enclaves ruled by Romans who worshipped Jupiter, Juno, and often, their representatives on earth, Caesar Augustus for instance. I know of a 10-11 year old girl who, in the 1960's, found herself pregnant not knowing how and she was punished for it. In her fifties, she started to remember everything and then, she knew what was what, much like many victims of priests later remember instances of abuse. My fiend who was a very young mother - 11 - still encounters nurses and therapists who suggest that the girl must have started having periods very early. No. A female's first period follows the release of the first unfertilized egg. I myself first learned this in an anthropology class at SU. The ancient texts which priests, pastors, theology professors and their readers discuss at length were written by ancient people trying to pass on whatever level of information they had. I would said Mary was not a virgin; Mary might not yet have known was sexual intercourse was; she was, after all, not yet married to her betrothed.
2
@Debra Merryweather Sorry about the typos.
I was somewhat religious until I moved to Alabama. Living here has convinced me that while the Bible has many good stories, particularly about how to conduct oneself in life, it was written by men mostly to control how others conduct their lives. The Bible's main purpose down here it to control the narrative in what ever way suits you.
I grew up Lutheran and still remember our pastor saying the Bible was dictated to men by God. Man's only input was to take dictation and correctly write it down. I switched to the Episcopal church many years ago and enjoy reading the books by Bishop John Shelby Spong. I still enjoy the ceremony of the church, but most of the doctrine is to be taken with a grain of salt and should not be used to control how others act.
12
I'm sure by now someone has noted that the Hebrew word Almah which can have several meanings but mainly means young woman or woman of a marriageable age and/or virgin was translated into Greek as parthenos which means virgin. That translation was a choice by the authors. However, the focus on a virgin birth is a reflection of a male dominated culture that views women who are virgins as higher in value than those who are not. Truthfully, many scholars believe that Mary may have been impregnated by the high priest of the temple which would have rendered her pregnancy as of divine origin. Whatever you believe, it is not history but myth. However William Lane Craig is correct about an essential fact. That doctrine derived by discerning the important and common themes found in the scripture my councils and theologians is important to Christian faith. Today we have too many blow dried preachers strutting across stages holding up Bibles selecting, out of context, passages from the Bible to support their own personal point of view rather than being subject to the discipline of a church body and the historical doctrines that should define the faith.
6
@Wayne Fuller
What historical doctrines are you referring to? Perhaps the churches attitude toward witches, the inquisition, their attitude towards gays, even the current news of too many to count sexual abuses of acolytes and others in Chicago. You either die or have your life ruined, great historical doctrine.
@Madwand I was thinking more about the Aposles creed the Nicene Creed, the Book of Confessions, the Catechisms, none of which make reference to gays, witches, or even sex. The stuff you reference is beyond the essential central doctrines of the Church and its those places where the Church got itself in trouble. For instance, the celebrate priesthood is not found in any of the early essential creeds of the Church nor is an all male clergy. Certainly the abomination of Dominion Theology and Prosperity Theology prevalent in the politicized Evangelical churches is a far place away from the original Christian witness. In fact they've turned the gospels on their head and changed the Jesus into some military action figure rather than God's sacrificial love and concern for the poor into love of the rich and predatory capitalism.
Considering that every third world country in the U.N. could arrange for a virgin to give birth to a male child on Christmas Day, yeah, it's probably safe to say that God could do it as well. Man can, God can't? Seriously?
Christianity is the eternal sunshine of an empty mind.
Its claims are outrageous and are an insult to any thinking person. I say this not just because I take a scientific, mechanical view of our existence, but rather, I say it because Christians, like their cousins the Jews and Muslims let their faith foreclose the real mystery of life. They define the infinite indifferent universe in strictly human terms, much as a self centred child would do.
15
Circular reasoning will never die.
9
not only was jesus the product of a virgin birth BUT supposedly mary's mother needed to be a virgin, too. for jesus to be a true virgin birth, his mother had to be begotten of a virgin, too! would someone address this assertion. that is quite a "hat trick". first of all is it true!
2
Why did the Romans have to vote on which gospels to redact and which not to!
The Virgin Birth as well as the concept of the Trinity comes from Isis. Isis was the most populous religion at the time of the Council of Nicea.
There was no such person, and the name Judas did not exist in the time of Jesus Crist. It came from the Roman word Judais, which mean anyone from Judea, the way someone from Texas is called a, Texan.
Why does God have to be anthropomorphic?
8
I was hoping for an interesting, theological discussion, but instead Kristof wastes my time talking to some intellectual-wannabe yokel. I'm not in any way trained as a theologian, but even I know the writers of Christian mythology pulled from stories existing at the time. I don't think anything Craig said was correct, thought out, or worthy of print. They were just his scatter-shot wishes and dreams. Fifteen minutes of my life I won't get back.
22
@Michael Brown Yes I was hoping for a more intellectual discussion. Nice man, sure, but he's a professor of philosophy? Wow.
2
Yes. An omniscient and omnipotent being impregnated a human girl in order to be born in human form so it could then be crucified in order to save the souls of the very creatures it had brought forth. In a remarkable show of compassion it then decided that these creatures must choose to show faith in it or suffer an eternity of pain. Forget the that the omniscient being already knows the outcome and that the omnipotent being caused all of the this to occur.
By the way, science is 100 percent incompatible with the God of the Bible and there exists zero evidence that supports the existence of a God. Not to mention that faith is the key precept of religion, so why try to prove anything?
And ever hear of the goddess Isis? Look up her and virgin birth. So many statements by this fool are outright lies.
10
"...Honestly, Christians have gotten very bad press."
Well after the Middle Ages, what would you expect?
10
@Charles Coughlin Ah, so it's the fault of the press!
Professor Craig’s level of ignorance is astonishing. Without going any further, we can illustrate this by the sublime nescience of his claim that “Jesus’ virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke and is utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology.” Wrong on at least two counts. First, Matthew and Luke were not independent sources: apparently Dr. Craig is unaware of the fact (attested by virtually every reputable scholar) that Luke cribbed heavily from the somewhat earlier Gospel of Luke, and that both in turn cribbing from the Gospel of Mark, composed over a generation after Jesus’ alleged execution by someone who almost certainly had no first had knowledge of his subject. Second, mythology is littered with pagan heroes born of virgins: Osiris, Zoroaster, Quetzalcoatl, Mithra, Attis, Krishna, Moye – all were believed by their devotees to be the product of parthenogenesis, as was Guatama Buddha.
I do not normally respond to blatant ignorance: there are enough fools and charlatans in the world that it would be a full-time job. But anyone with the arrogance to refer blandly to the “weakly evidenced, false claims in other religions” (especially from the honorable platform of the NY Times) while ignoring the shaky foundations of his own deserves to be called out.
26
Well, that’s 3 minutes I won’t get back.
9
"weakly evidenced, false claims in other religion..." How very arrogant, not to mention rude.
8
This is no time to be questioning the birth of Jesus.
As somebody was saying just the other day, it's Jesus take-the-wheel time right now
3
Thanks, I needed a good laugh. That said, I find it very depressing that Professor Craig is completely and totally incapable of putting himself in someone else's shoes. Total lack of empathy is scary.
9
@Jeff M
Sort of like Trump
2
The whole Jesus story might have been cover for an unplanned, out of wedlock pregnancy that went viral.
15
@Shiloh 2012
Bravo!
There have been reputable scholarly articles that conclude Jesus Christ probably did not exist. The Christian Gods - as you would have a hard time getting the different denominations to agree with each other on 'his' attributes - are no more than a stack of turtles with Yertle sitting on the top. After reading this article cleanse your brains with some Dr. Seuss and you will understand everything better.
8
You really seem to like this word: "Evidence."
I don't think you know what it means.
I'm an actual scientist in an actual STEM field with actual papers published. Yeah, I have religious (all Jewish really lol) colleagues, but even they'd agree that you should stop co-opting our language to service your own purposes. Stop calling things "evidence" that are not actual evidence. Stop saying you're using science or logic or mathematics when I doubt you could solve a partial differential equation to save your life.
And the problem with miracles is that if the natural laws of the universe can just be thrown out this one time so a guy can raise from the dead or turn water into wine or fish into pastries, then it invalidates the existence of natural laws at all. I can crunch the numbers based on geometry and materials science to say a bridge can hold X weight... but if those material constants are suddenly totally up to the whim of God at any moment, then those laws are nonsense. Maybe the bridge will hold X weight? Maybe it won't! Who knows! Roll the dice!
Miracles ARE, in fact, inconsistent with rational thought, science and engineering. "Gravity works like this for all bodies in the universe... except this one time when this guy flew around like a bird, weee!" is not scientific thinking.
Kristof. Man. These were some softball questions you threw at this guy. Maybe that was on purpose, I don't know. But then what do you expect, for a snake oil salesman to not sell snake oil?
29
@JB I’ve been enjoying reading all the comments but so far yours is my favorite! Thanks.
6
“...you think science is somehow incompatible with belief in miracles. If so, you need to give an argument for that conclusion”
Um... what?!?
Looks like somebody forgot his 5th grade science class - the scientific method? You prove a theory by testing it? A miracle is by definition not re-creatable and is thus not scientifically supportable. How about this - you say Mary was a pregnant virgin. You go prove to me how that happens, without the benefit of medical procedures which were absolutely unknown back then. Show me evidence that this is possible. If you can’t, your theory is not scientifically sound.
10
"Honestly, Christians have gotten very bad press."
I wonder why?
6
And did Mary have a say in any of this?
8
This so-called professor is - like so many Christians - dismissive and arrogant. Thank you for exposing the extraordinary hypocrisy and self-deceit that is Christianity.
10
First things first. Mr. Kristof this so called Professor did not deserve to be interviewed by a very rational, highly intelligent, logical journalist. But maybe that was your intent and point to show the shallow, ignorant, pompous, impossible ,
contradictory claims made by these so called Theology professors. He is pro-Science unlike the other weak faiths which are not. Yes, Science too is into Immaculate conception - now. It is still in the experimental stages, in the labs . Whether conception is possible only zygotes i.e only Chromosomes XX needed without any contribution from XY!
No wonder people are losing faith in Jesus, Krishna, Allah or Zeus.
4
" Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence), an occasional miracle is child’s play. "
When people lead off with such nonsense comments, you know you're being lied to from the start.
8
Geez Nic wake up. All your deep thinking is leading you further into a dead end abyss with no answers. Asking questions about a cloud is fruitless.
Breath deep, appreciate the wonders as you sense them, go hiking, hug those close to you, write poetry or something and smile occasionally.
5
Mary was voted a virgin by the attendees of the First Council of Nicaea.
Btw what about all the other cannons that were were not voted into the Bible that bears different witness.
“A man heard what he wants to here and disregards the rest”—The Boxer; Simon and Garfunkel
7
Not understanding how Matthew and Luke would know what Mary and Joseph got up to in bed. How then can what they said or wrote be "proof"?
7
Nick, I am sorry you wasted your time in a dialogue with an authoritarian, closed minded fool like this "professor." Not one thing he says makes any sense to this scientifically trained person.
8
On a scale of 1-10, whether Mary had a “real” virgin birth isn’t even on the radar. What a waste of time!!!
3
Wise men still adore him.
My favorite part was the no true Scotsman fallacy at the end. Sure, bud, those world-famous, prosperity gospel-proselytizing, ultrarich, grifting, megachurch preachers aren't Christians. How about the Christians who elected and support the literal antithesis of Jesus? Are they Christians? The ones who turn away the needy and lock children up in cages? The slavery-justifiers? The Jim Crowers, the segregationists? The gay haters? When you take all of them out of the equation how many Christians are left?
The best evidence for a lack of god is the continued existence of Christianity.
10
The good Dr. Craig lost me right off the bat with his profession of creationism "for which we have good evidence", no less. Is this interview intended as a parody, Mr. Kristof, or were you blind-sided?
9
Christianity is a great religion. Someday we should try it.
4
When I saw the title of this article, I had hope for some kind of critical thought process. What I got was more of the religious pablum I’ve been fed since childhood.
10
it's beyond my comprehension that anybody who can think could/would believe this.....
4
Come next April, can we look forward to an inquiry as to whether the Easter Bunny really, truly has a fluffy white tail?
10
oh my gosh. It takes a strange intellectual vacuum called "faith' (when reality and facts fail to back an idea but you believe it anyway) to swallow this story.
3
Explained the atheist the the Christian, "I simply believe in one less god than you do."
6
I have to assume this interview was published to highlight the absurdity of Christian theology and the extent to which otherwise intelligent people can delude themselves. Otherwise, I would cancel my subscription.
10
Well, 80% of them voted for racism and bigotry, so that tells me all I need to know about the lot of them.
7
Wow, a completely original Christmas article the likes of which I’ve never heard.
Jesus didn’t exist so in that resepect, he was born of a virgin because he wasn’t actually born.
Fun holiday fact: almost 1% of all births in the US are virgin births each year.
Allegedly.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-health-virgins/claims-of-virgin-births-in-u-s-near-1-percent-study-idUSBRE9BG1F020131217
We got lots of potential virgin-birth jesuses running around right now. No need to go back 2,000 years.
4
Dear God save us all from religion!
4
Argh. As a minister and someone interested in Jesus, I've been writing about the collision between science and faith for years.
Twelve (12) years ago, NY Times even printed my thoughts on this in the hard-copy paper. Can't say I've really improved much on my answer in the intervening years. For the record :
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/opinion/the-gospel-of-judas-and-matters-of-faith-603376.html
1
And here we have another nice opportunity for NYT readers to disparage people of faith. Merry Christmas.
2
@Mike: If he'd interviewed a real scholar, the reactions might not have been so negative.
5
@Allison someone with a PhD from a university in the UK who did postdoctoral research at one of the most prestigious universities in Germany and who holds two university faculty positions isn't a "real scholar"? Do you dismiss philosophical research in its entirety or just as relates to Christianity?
Perhaps Prof. Craig should first prove the existence of god.
F3
5
This is the third interview on the same subject matter which I read in consecutive three years. Kristof’s stance has been consistent by raising questions about Gospel miracles which can be said very reasonably for modern minds, if putting if plainly, as unbelievable. Through three interviews, the essence of the answers has been also consistent by self-attestations, faith, institutional evidences, or in short, its dogma. I found this interview drew most uninstutional answers, probably because at this time, the columnist shaped his questions in a concisely constructive way more than in the previous two. An integrity of knowledges is on the other hand brought up by the interviewee with a sort of evidential force, which would be a pure strength from ‘I believe because I believe’. However, all the history and sciences might not be simply carried into religious claims most attestably. The evidence of it, to me, is that even the modern clergy may not be able to dismiss a phase of modern-day miracles as totally unrelated to the Christian hierarchy based on faith ladders to be the ranks for judgments of such miracles. Although the interviewee is unquestionably a respectful Christian, his unshakable faith fortress, seems-it to me, is a very modern adaptation of the Biblical acts.
Well, Nick fails to provide readers with a person who can help explain the contradictions of Christian mythology but he succeeds in emphasizing that Christians rationalize away the contradictions to support their faith.
Dr. Craig, unfortunately, needs to read him some Joseph Campbell to see how unremarkable (and borrowed) much of the mythology is: the holy trinity and the virgin birth are duplicated in other spiritual mythologies across human history.
Also Dr. Craig should know that much of the inaccuracy in the Gospels is due to the discrepancies between Northern Aramaic and Southern Aramaic, the languages that Jesus would have spoken. Some of the words used in those languages sound alike but vary in definition. Thus we get, "...it's easier to pull a camel through the eye of a needle..." because in Southern Aramaic the word for "rope" means "camel" in Northern Aramaic. So it makes more sense to say ..."it's easier to pull a rope through the eye of a needle..."
But for me, the toughest part of Christianity is the fact that the core tenet of Christianity is "spreading the Gospel", meaning that it has never been good enough for Christians to believe what they believe and let others believe what they believe; they have to make everyone believe it too. In fact, it appears the success of Christianity is not how deeply one person believes in the Gospel, but how many people believe in the Gospel.
But I'm all in on the idea of Jesus, even if I'm not all in on Christianity .
3
@Tom Wiggin Pulling a camel through the needle's eye is both true to the citation's intent, and a far more vivid metaphor. If the copyeditors of the original Gospels knew language and craft, they did their jobs well. Centuries of biblical poetry readers applaud them. But your other points are well taken.
We are so much better off respectfully talking with and questioning others about their faith than judgmentally condemning them for what they believe or don't believe. That's the joy of freedom of religion.
We are all part of the human family. We should stress that family part.
1
@Chris: Most commenters here would agree with that. Too bad Dr. Craig has to arrogantly put down other religions at the same time that he exalts his own. He earned the reaction he's getting.
4
Craig’s position on the difference between Christianity and all other religions boils down to “our miracles happened and yours didn’t.”
645
@Charlie in NY That's pretty much EVERY Christian's position. That's why they think they can get away with using the whole "The bible is proof that everything written in the bible is true."
51
@sam
“our miracles happened and yours didn’t.” And he neglected to say, ours are real.
18
@Charlie in NY
I would submit just as you cannot begin to understand the workings of the Universe without quantum mechanics and the Theory of Relativity nor can you begin to understand the power in the teachings of the New Testament in context without faith. Read as referenced, "Mere Chritianity" by C.S. Lewis and understand in your heart the main teaching of Jesus: 1. Love your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and 2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Happy Holidays!!
15
Thank you Mr. Kristof for bringing us this piece just days before the celebration of the incorrect birth-date of Jesus.
Of course there have been many virgin births through recorded history, many leading to one of the thousands of recognized world religions today.
Was Jesus a fair, sympathetic, peaceful man . . . for sure.
The operative word above is "man" - and truly a great one.
If we want to "believe" that Mary was his mother, then we simply do not know who his father was - but "he" was also a man !
The gospels written many decades AD are wonderful mythical tales which speak to the positive traits many have come to "believe" about Jesus and his followers.
For most people, what religion they belong to, or more commonly; 'used to belong to' is simply a function of being born into it.
Depending where you were born on this planet, will most likely determine which of the religions in your region you were brought up with.
I have never seen a member of any religion, where their beliefs made them a better person.
I have also met some very bad people, who declare devout association with a religion.
For myself, the shear numbers dissuade me from "believing" - with 4100 recognized main religions and over 84,000 recognized sub-categories of those 4100 . . . assures me the NO ONE has it right.
8
Nothing new here. Same argument. Both Believers and Atheists file their respective claims hoping such will become the conclusions. Atheists delve into facts; e.g., the Scriptures aren't history but selling points; there were many "faith-healers" and "miracle workers" around 2000 years ago, politics and power walked with the beginnings of Christianity. It varies. Believer argument is always the same, if packaged differently: "It is true that God exists, Jesus performed miracles because ......well, it's true!".
EVERY argument such as this distills down to this begging of the question.
2
I've always found the idea of a "virginal birth" unsettling. Considering that-- for this to have happened-- a young woman would have had no choice in the pregnancy whatsoever. But, then again, Christians continue to show us, to this day, what little consideration they hold for a woman's desire to be pregnant.
16
To me the big question is - what is God?- not whether one believes in God. Is God a thinking being that looks like us, or something beyond our ability to understand?
Obviously Prof. Craig is stuck in some dogma, but I know that some occurrences that we would call "miracles" do happen. We just don't understand at this point how or why. It doesn't have to follow that everything in Gospels is fact.
When the Vatican releases the hidden gospels then maybe I’d believe. Until then, it’s all nonsense that was shoved down my throat when I was a child by nuns and priests. I converted to Judaism at age 29 but found that nonsensical also. I searched for other spiritual inspiration but finally settled on Science for answers which freed me of all the other mumbo jumbo. At 77, I could not be happier.
12
If you had a rule that every swan you see is white, then you'd believe that all swans are ALWAYS white. Then one day, you go to some strange island and you see a BLACK swan. The rule has been broken. The rules of science are DESCRIPTIVE not PRESCRIPTIVE. Once you understand this, you can understand what a miracle is and why the "rule-maker" can be the "rule breaker."
1
Almost a parody of Christian triumphalism. The further I read, the more I had the feeling of being in a Monty Python skit. The peak is the question, enunciated without any ironic intent, "Why should we suspend our emphasis on science and rationality just because of weakly evidenced, false claims in *other* religions?" [emphasis mine] One can imagine a chorus of equally tone-deaf representatives of the world's myriad sects singing this tune, each deaf to his neighbors.
9
The very core of this article is non-sensical. There is virtually zero evidence that Jesus even existed. He is probably a compendium of a number of rabbis from that period that protested against the Romans and whose followers claimed were "prophets" not unlike the evangelicals today. Peter and Paul probably existed. They were the two Jews that created the new testament. So saying Jesus existed is kind of like saying Harry Potter existed. Sorry to burst your bubble.
And what is so wrong with Jesus as metaphor?
We may very well be living in a kind of virtual reality. We may be one of an infinite amount of universes all of which may be digital in origin. The "creators" of these digital universes which may be our only "reality" may themselves be digital creations of other beings and on an on.
But, no sir(s), the answer is laughably not in the child's stories that we humans call our "religions". Its critically important to know this, to understand this, and to "preach this so that love and tolerance truly sweep this world, instead of the prejudice, the intolerance and the even the hatred of the other that no "prophet" and certainly no "Jesus" would have ever accepted.
Merry Christmas.
5
"Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence)..."
Huh? What evidence? I would love to see it (please don't point at the universe and say that is evidence, because it is not necessarily.) Searchers have been looking for incontrovertible evidence and proof for 2000 years, and all we have to show for it is "belief" in a god's existence.
Why would an omnipotent god only provide "evidence" when He/She/It could easily provide incontrovertible proof?
I'm also amused by the condescending tone used for other religions.
9
Hmm. He seems to be attributing Jesus and his miracles to some kind of evidence. I have never seen any evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels even existed. He is taking the Gospel's themselves as evidence. There were many "Christos" around at that time and more than one was crucified (a punishment for treason against Roman authority). Jesus was probably a combination of stories from several or more of them. Virgin birth does not, or has ever, existed. Sorry.
9
"The fine-tuning of the universe" - So if the finely tuned universe couldn't have happened by itself, how did God happen by itself? Belief is fine, but please don't try and tell us there's any logic to it.
5
The Bible is comprised of books that are stories written by men, literally by men, who sought to do many things: a) sustain a culture or movement; b) promote their view/agenda over that of an invading people/culture to maintain their position as a people that can survive despite odds (this is all the old testament is about, and kudos to the ability of writers and spiritual leaders to sustain something) and c) because men wrote (as best we know) the texts many people still consider gospel (literally and philosophyically) - nice effort to categorize women in a subjective place. COME ON... Jesus was born to a virgin as much as any of us were. The narrative was created to push a story about a man who most likely existed, most likely was a spiritual leader and rebel, and let's not forget - Jesus was but one of many prophets at the time - his narrative stuck. Jesus, folks, study up.
7
@socal60
What the Jesus folks - especially Church of Rome genuflectors - ought study up on is the widespread accusations, torture, rape, drawn and quartering, slaughter and burning alive of any hapless female who crossed the Christers who brought that new level of misogyny to the Roman Empire. It is the roots of the horrors still visited upon girls and women in all 1st world nations. This is why history never gets near the church's genocide of up to 10 million girls and women murdered and burned as "witches" across Europe in the 1200s - 1700s purely for sadism and profit by the Vatican.
1
In Craig's very first answer he acknowledges that before he became a Christian, he possessed some intellectual and scientific integrity, i.e. he "struggled" with the impossibility of virgin birth.
But after becoming a believer he no longer struggles, he just lies:
"Some of the arguments for God’s existence that I’ve defended... appeal to the best evidence of contemporary science."
4
When taking a position and defending your beliefs, the terms "rational" and "reasonable" are unfortunate choices.
We've all got reasons, and therefore are all reasonable. Even when we don't agree. And - as rationality is based on reason and what we see as logical - it is just as insulting.
Being open to those whose tenets don't match yours is the only fair-minded, respectful premise to bring to disagreements, large and small. Should we wheedle our way through trying to prove an unprovable point and look for the values behind seemingly unmovable positions, well now, we've got ourselves a real discussion.
This stuff? Utterly insulting nonsense. Pretty dangerous, too.
4
Matthew, whoever was its author, was written in the late 1st century for a Jewish audience who would be expected to know the prophesies in Isaiah about a son to be born to King Ahaz by a young woman. The ancient Hebrew word was “almah” which could mean betrothed or hidden one, etc. Matthew’s account was an allusion, most likely, to that story to make the point that Jesus was special, predicted, and divinely sent (Immanuel).
Fast forward past the Enlightenment, the invention of history in the mid-1800s, and the advent of science and suddenly we must know if Jesus really was born of a virgin thus missing the point of the story. Reading ancient literature with modern eyes is a fool’s errand. Trying to fit ancient texts into modern concepts makes no sense. Fundamentalism, itself a late development, aims to do just that robbing a 2,000 year old story of its rich heritage, context and truth: “Jesus, not Augustus, is ‘Son of God’ and true peace comes thru justice not victory.” Listen to that story, consider its meaning and decide whom you will follow every day.
We lose that story when we worry about how it was told to the ancient hearers of it.
1
Dr. Craig evinces a great lack of knowledge with regard to Greek religious beliefs. The Greek gods could sexually mate with each other, with humans (euhemerization), and also humans themselves could be "translated" into becoming gods. The idea of virgin birth would have been an anomaly among the Greeks. Furthermore, the advent of Dionysus and the religious practices therein bear a remarkable resemblance to the Jesus story. And where did Jesus disappear to for almost 30 years? Odds on, he went east and was practicing mindfulness in Buddhist monasteries. Evangelical Christian philosophers and theologians really need to go outside the box to learn the varieties of religious experience, as William James indicates.
6
Mary was a virgin because the only man she had ever known was her father. She was betrothed to Joseph in a pregnant state. A not that unusual patriarchal family problem?
Of course she was impregnated by God. That is what makes the concept of patriarchal fatherhood all-powerful. None can doubt the foundation of the father led family in any male dominant religion.
To do so would be would be an Act of Witchcraft on this Midwinter's Yule Tide.
Mary was a Virgin because despite her situation, she never lost her Innocence or the will to be a Good Mother to a future possible Savior of humanity. That is where her Holiness originates.
1
Piffle. Anyone with a pittance of knowledge of biblical texts know that they are "weakly evidenced, false claims." Just take, for example "transfiguration," or "transubstantiation." On the other hand, I like to believe that "all the stories are true," be they of Zeus, or Shiva, or Krishna, or even Jesus. But they are all true in the same sense. Kind of like the Michaelson-Morley experiment.
1
"Jesus' brothers and sisters. The Gospel of Mark 6:3 and the Gospel of Matthew 13:55–56 state that James, Joses (or Joseph), Jude and Simon were the brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus."
So the siblings were from a different mother?
2
You either came about your existence by a miracle - God created man - or you evolved from a tadpole. Pick your poison.
I'm for keeping all of my options on the table, and it's for that reason I'm keeping my goldfish well-stocked and well-fed. I'm hoping that in 18 years he might make the perfect groom for my now-2-year old daughter.
2
You either came about your existence through a miracle - God created man - or you evolved from a tadpole. Pick your poison.
I'm for keeping all of my options on the table, and it's for that reason that I'm keeping my goldfish well-stocked and well-fed. I'm hoping that in 18 years he might make the perfect groom for my now-2-year old daughter.
Is it possible that we have misunderstood angels and miracles and who or what Jesus really may have been for this whole time? Why is it any more unbelievable that Mary the mother of Jesus artificially implanted with Jesus and never had sex with a man? There are reports of this in modern times by credible people. There is evidence of humans in pre-history being visited by far more advanced races from off planet. Is this really so much harder to believe than Jesus was God and Man and able to preform miracles? It really is not mutually exclusive and really goes a long way to explain Jesus. Merry Christmas.
'Belief' is the word for ignorance.
If people would admit it when they don't know something this kind of waste of words would not be worthy of a moment's discussion except as frivolous entertainment.
But when they admit to their actual ignorance, a miracle happens: something is learned.
Kristoff knows this. His interviewee does not.
5
1) Mary is described as a virgin because of the way the Hebrew in Isaiah’s prophecy has been translated. The actual word (almah) was used to describe a young woman of marriageable age, and could also mean a virgin. But there was another word (bethulah) which specifically meant virgin, and which was not used.
2) the “Hebrew Bible is mythology” but “Gospels are biography” argument is specious; there’s plenty of biography in the Hebrew Bible, and plenty of mythology in the Gospels
3) ignoring narrative discrepancies because they don’t apply to the “big questions” is intellectually dishonest
4) “Why should we suspend our emphasis on science and rationality just because of weakly evidenced, false claims in other religions?” First of all, that’s a particularly unpleasant slam at other religions. Second of all, there are plenty of people who could argue for the weakly evidenced and false claims in Christianity.
Points 2 through 4, of course, are my opinion, not incontrovertible fact. But this cleric’s attitudes really smack of the our-way-or-the-highway attitudes of early Christianity, which are what led to that faith’s dominance once the Roman Empire embraced it as the official religion. Christianity was the first faith to refuse tolerance to other systems of belief.
9
The belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, parthenogenesis, has about as much validity as denying climate change.
In the New Testament there is one reference to this. It is in Matthew 1:22-23, where the apostle mistranslates the prophet Isaiah 7:14, saying that the Hebrew almah עַלְמָה means virgin.
The only way to know what the Old Testament use of the word is to see where else it appears and how it is used. It appears 7 times in the feminine and twice in the masculine. For the details read : https://outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/
Interestingly, Isaiah uses this word one time but the Hebrew word for virgin, betula, five times. If he had wanted to use virgin in this verse, the sole basis for the Christian claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, he would have.
He didn't.
The burden of proof is on those who continue to claim that Jesus was born of a virgin.
For a really accurate understanding of Jesus and the development of early Christianity, read The gospel according to the Jews by Jose Faur. For two thousand years Jews were not allowed to present our experience of this part of Jewish history. Faur does this. Jesus was a known person in the Jewish community. Why not let his contemporary Jews speak about him?
5
So an evangelical flatly states that he has “good evidence” that the biblical Jesus really existed, was born of a virgin, on and on. Still waiting on that “good evidence,” and the scribblings of apostles hundreds of years after these purported events do not qualify as eyewitness accounts.
Our nation will be stronger and smarter once superstition is finally replaced by hard science and myths are no longer considered to be facts.
5
Eighteen comments into this column, it came to me like a flash of light, the Times “St Nick” Kristoff is a lot smarter than he looks. He could have had this dialogue with of a thousand smarter, better educated, better respected biblical scholars (no offense Dr Crane), but instead he chose this guy. The reason: because Kristoff knew that this guy’s simplistic views, bland false assertions and somewhat poorly thought out theories would irritate Times readers so much that it would force those readers to actually think, just to rebut the good Doctor. A legion of readers has had to think of what evidence is there of other religions miracles, how common were virgin births in first century ce mythology, is less evidence better, because that truly tests one’s faith. And so on.
Well thought out and deeply researched answers to Kristoff’s questions would have done all of the thinking for us. The comments would have been nit-picky and boring. But instead, these answers made me think-even do a little research. And comment. And the comments are great, making them allowed all of us the satisfying task of exposing humbugs, old and new. Thank you Mr Kristoff for a great experience.
4
He hasn’t answered any of your questions and clearly doesn’t really understand what evidence or science are. Not sure why I spent my time reading this.
2
Isn't it a bit convenient that God chose to reveal himself at a period in history when people were advanced enough to tell stories, but had no way to document or test their claims? Isn't it a strange coincidence that the Bible only mentions things already known to people at that time...nothing about germs, electricity? Come on, people just ask the most obvious questions and it all unravels. Grow up!
3
I think Marxist make a mistake when they attack religion. Even though they believe spiritual beliefs are utter nonsense they are necessary for most people who live difficult lives. The only and real danger are people who believe, have no doubts, and insist upon proselytizing. Otherwise leave them alone.
2
Whenever a religion.... or nation.... or political/social/philosophical movement... believes that it alone is right and all others are wrong it lacks legitimacy.
Christian myths and allegories are rich in their teachings but utterly absurd if taken literally.
There was no virgin birth. No instant healing. No rising from the grave.
And God has no gender.
2
Mr. Kristof, I think it was big-hearted of you to spend time with the mentally impaired this holiday season.
3
I don't blame Mr. Craig for uttering these nonsense. The blame rests on you, Mr. Kristof to provide him with such a medium. Real sad.
4
If it’s no big deal for God to make a woman pregnant, how big a deal could it be for God to turn an ignorant, sleazy, incessantly lying con artist into Cyrus the Great? And there’s the problem of so much of what passes for Christianity today — certainly the uncritically literalist evangelical brand, at any rate. It teaches people to believe things that aren’t true and don’t make sense –– against both all evidence and sound reason, simply on someone else’s say-so. Is it any wonder 71 percent of self-described evangelicals support Trump, even now?
3
Here is my precis of the interview
Was Jesus born of a virgin? Sure! If God could create the whole universe, he sure could make that happen. We have proof that God exists so you can take my word on the virgin birth thing. I won't be providing that proof in this interview though!
Maybe Jesus was just a moral teacher and not a god? Hey! Remember that proof I alluded to to in the first question? I'm sprinkling some more of it here. The Bible tells us Jesus was god! Good enough for me!
You don't believe the universe was made in six days. Why should we accept the Old Testament can be metaphorical but the Gospels really happened?
The Gospels are ancient biography like Plutarch. It's a historically reliable account! [Plutarch include accounts of Romulus, the mythical founder of Rome, who was raised by a wolf and Theseus, a King of Athens who was the son of a God].
You say that the New Testament is true yet there are contradictions. Matthew says Judas hung himself while Acts of the Apostles says he burst apart.
I know I just said that the New Testament was reliable but I don't claim it's always right! The parts that justify what I believe and don't contradict one another are the good parts! Don't read the bad parts!
HERE IS THE BEST PART!
What about people who believe (or believed) in Zeus or Krishna or Shiva?
I don't understand! Those are false claims! My claims are justified by science! Should I sprinkle more proof here?!?!
7
Baloney. A good Jew is required to have sexual relations with his wife. And the ancient Hebrew term for virgin can be translated as maiden and young woman instead (though the written gospels were Greek). Mary was not a virgin, though there is no doubt that she was the mother of the historic Jesus, who also had other younger siblings if you believe the Bible. A Christian doesn't have to believe in an absurd and unnecessary parthenogenesis, given what we know about science today. A Christian must only believe that Jesus was G-d.
1
Silly, misleading headline. There was no real question about the subject. Oh yes, there’s a god that made the universe and therefore that god can make a woman pregnant. Well okey dokey, so glad you asked that question and then enlightened us with a nothing answer. Complete lack of discourse around what could have been an interesting conversation.
3
‘Harmonizing perceived contradictions in the Bible is a matter of in-house discussion amongst Christians. ‘
Hard to think of a more ridiculous way to waste your time. Imagine devoting your one precious life to that!
2
Is no one educated enough to be aware of the mistranslation of “young woman of child bearing age” to “virgin” when the Septuagint was formalized in the second century, creating this mess? Not only do some Christians selectively exclude large parts of the Old Testament in their beliefs, but apparently no one reads history books either. Get the facts straight!
2
The discussion over the virgin birth leaves out one aspect of the event that seems to me to be very relevant: if it is true, then Mary was impregnated without her knowledge or consent. We have words for that today, and none of them possess positive connotations. It's hard to get away from the idea that Mary suffered some kind of violation.
3
If there is a god, shame on him. Billions have died over whose god and whose teaching is true and thousands die today in the Middle East, India, Myanmar, and elsewhere. If there is a god, it is high time he stepped out from behind his burning bush and told the world what this is all about instead of letting people suffer and kill each other over his disputed existence and teachings.
4
If you read John P. Meier - A Marginal Jew; Rethinking The Historical Jesus, you can see how flawed Craig's answers are. A group of old men decided which writings would become the New Testament. Why can't you men accept that Jesus was a great person who walked the face of the earth for about 30 days and set a good example for us, in this short period of time. He was probably born no differently than any other baby at that time. He had brothers and sisters. He may not have risen from the dead. This does not change the fact that he was a great example for all. We do know that Jesus had a friend called Mary Magdalene (probably no different than Peter or James) and you men have managed to demean and belittle her into no more than a reformed prostitute. So why should we listen to your theories again??
2
1. What a great idea to ask a fundamentalist believer.
2. The real question: Is Jesus' existence a myth?
1
Exactly.
1
Religions should stop treating fish stories as fact. To do so is an insult to our intelligence.
3
I have read that "virgin" is an erroneous translation of a word that meant "young woman."
2
The interlocutors really need to read Fontenelle's "Histoire des Oracles" and review Montesquieu's brief chapter (Esprit des Lois) "Du crime contre la nature": " Only three crimes were punished in canon law with death by fire: sorcery, heresy, and sodomy. Of which we now know that the first does not exist; the second is clearly a matter of opinion; and the third would be taken care of by policing morals."
Montesquieu didn't have enough scientific information about homosexuality to know that it is a natural and normal development in a minority of persons, but he saw the evil in religious dogma: they condemned witches, but burned women.
Mr. Craig is clearly not widely read - except that Kristof gives him a readership to appreciate his narrow parti pris.
1
The fact that this makes the front page of the New York Times is a strong statement about millions of people being willing to ignore every ounce of scientific evidence in favor of mythology. The concept of a virgin birth is no more credible or believable than the world being created in 6 days - they are both completely invented and have zero "evidence". Let's focus on reality and not give credibility to mythology by making this front page news. We have much more important issues facing humanity than discussing fantasy.
3
Matthew and Luke in 1:18-25 and 1:26-38, respectively, were marketing a new religion. The expectation of some sects in the first century was that the mesiah be born of a virgin. Presto! The virgin birth! Matthew and Luke were the Trumps of their generation.
3
The fact that unwed mothers were stoned to death in that era might have been an incentive for the virgin story. As they say, you can fool some people all the time.
2
I find it sad, ironic, and funny that the best and tersest description of Christianity and Jesus' message came from a Jewish comedian playing God in a movie:
"You can love, cherish, and take care of each other; or you can kill each other!"
If you don't get that, and can't do that, then everything else about ANY religion is nonsense. And if you do get it, and live it, then everything else is gravy, unnecessary to living a good and moral life.
4
It is fitting that at a time of overwhelming revelations about predatory priests, who groomed, molested and raped thousands of children and adolescents, that this theologian defends the core story of Christianity: The rape and impregnation of a teenage girl who was powerless to say no to an overwhelming male authority figure.
4
@DLM I've heard it all now. Bizarre. Merry Christmas!
1
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
1
“Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence)”
Whoa! Now there’s a Christmas miracle! Please do share this “evidence” with the rest of us 7 billion people on the planet! If this was indeed true, it would be the headline of this article and front page news of every newspaper and media outlet spanning the globe, and not some throwaway comment in your second sentence, before getting to the more serious questions like how many angels can fit on a pinhead.
It’s not like we haven’t been searching for “good evidence” these last tens of thousands of years either. So fess up and publish your findings for review...
2
Fascinating from this atheist's perspective. Not even in childhood did I believe these myths, but always wondered why adults pretended to. Along these lines:
Quote:
1. “Given the existence of a Creator for which we have good evidence.” Depends on what you consider evidence. Anyone can create “evidence” to support any theory. That’s what con men and snake oil salesmen do. I don’t understand why people want to create false equivalency between science and beliefs. Science is climate change. Belief is flat earth.
2. "Because the Gospels are a different than the primeval history of Genesis." To me gospels and genesis are both stories created by men. Just because you personally associate with the language and imagery of "Gospels" doesn't make it any more real--it only makes it more relatable to you in context.
3. “Mere Christianity,” seems like justifications for contradictions to avoid an existential crisis. If what really matters is answering the unanswerable then that seems a worthy philosophical and scholarly pursuit rather than attempting to force a sweeping authoritarianism into the society and politics of a diverse humanity. Many of us want nothing to do with religious moralizing or proselytizing.
4. “Weakly evidenced false claims in other religions”? Don’t you see that “others” also see YOUR religion as weakly evidenced? It’s as if religions subscribe to “selective suspension of disbelief” to explain their faith but don’t allow others to do the same.
Cont'd...
2
Both parties in this interview seem to avoid the most salient point of the virgin birth: it was essential to the Biblical writers that Jesus be born "without sin"; if you want to believe in "original sin," then a virgin birth is the only solution, but if you think original sin is hoey, then any old white bread conception is perfectly fine.
Or, if you're from the William Jennings Brian school of theology, sex itself is original sin. No sex, no sin.
Either way, it's shaky reasoning built on more shaky reasoning.
1
When was the first Gospel written? 47 years AD?, the second, third fourth?, What is the evidence for God, creator of the universe, and are there theories with more value mathematically, physics wise? 13,500,000,00years ago is the start of the universe, the earth is 4,567,000,000 years old. Eukaryotic cells formed - when? We share common DNA with - what? If you read what Jesus says, there is much to agree with. Love yourself, love your neighbor. What is Jesus, 'son of God', were 'Jesus, brother to us all', much like that phrase was used at the time, like 'a child of God'. ?
1
Sigh. I don't really care one way or another, but I find it funny how many men seem to find the notion of a virgin getting pregnant a personal affront...
I'm guessing an all powerful god could have let Joseph father Jesus. Virgin birth is merely a competitive feature of Christianity to keep pace with other religions' myths. M, M, L & J are PR guys for Christianity. You've got to take the New Testament with a grain of salt too.
2
Advice from the Sufis -- Do not believe fantastic tales without proof.
1
In response to Mr. Kristof's question about the "virgin birth," Professor Craig writes, "I’m reasonably confident.... Historically speaking, the story of Jesus’ virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke and is utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology or Judaism. So what’s the problem?"
Two random guys I met at a party last week independently attested that they had flown in on the great flying spaghetti monster. It was utterly unlike anything I'd ever heard before. So, I concluded of course that it must be true. What's the problem with that?
Dear me. This is the kind of thinking that gets someone a professorship at the Houston Baptist University? Third graders show more sophisticated reasoning than this.
Listen, women who had had sex were deemed dirty and impure in those days. Of course, the mother of Jesus could not be dirty and impure; at the same time, he has to have a human mother who physically conceives and gives birth to him, because of the bit about him being part god, part man. So, they came up with some pathetically juvenile story about a virgin birth. She is a human mother and gave birth to him, but she never sullied herself (no harlot she) by being sexual. Solves everything. It's a miracle!
Someone needs to help this man.
3
Craig should take his own advice and, “...give an argument for [his] conclusion[s].” His responses could be a case study in logical fallacies.
1
Religion, all in all, is a complete Babel. Thousands of gods, thousands of doctrines, all the believers accusing each other of being wrong, and that only they have the truth. Rev. Craig probably has disagreements about the alleged facts with other members of his faculty; every mile further from Houston just lengthens the list of contentious claims. Glad I'm not part of the open-air nuthouse of supernatural credulity.
1
" Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence), an occasional miracle is child’s play. "
I think he could have just said "Magic!". Far more succinct. Far more honest too, while we're on the subject.
2
In addition to health care and climate change, religion is another area where Americans lag way behind other western nations in clinging to outdated, selfish or ignorant beliefs.
I would be more tolerant of Mr. Craig and his ilk if their mystical gods and villains fairy tales hasn't resulted in the mass murder of millions of innocents. Their ignorance is not bliss for non-believers__Christian, Muslim or otherwise.
www.newyorkgritty.net
2
“weakly evidenced, false claims in other religions?”
Wow, what an incredible put down of all great ancient religions of the world! Talk about fundamentalism in sheep’s clothing!
7
On the other hand, fundamentalists understand one, um, fundamental thing: If you aren't going to swallow all of it, what's the point of swallowing any of it?
1
How can one go about life explaining what you can't understand to a miracle. Gives creedence to: "ignorance is bliss".
3
Could it be that all of this religious stuff is superstition. Also a darn good reason to start wars and hold onto power. I have no respect nor time for people who believe in invisible things.
6
This guy, William Lane Craig, is a hoot. As the beat generation might have opined, “Far out man, far out.”
3
Why is the whole idea dependent upon a virginal birth of Jesus?
What happens to the story if he was just born, and was a good guy?
What tarnish would he carry if he had Joseph as his father?
What if Joseph had spilled his seed and a human rose up from that event, with the female side of it removed from the equation?
I know that the Catholics struggled (for some reason) with Mary giving birth to a perfect being, having not been intimate with Joseph, and in order to remove her sinfulness, they had to concoct the idea of her being born of an Immaculate Conception, which there is nothing in the bible about.
One mystery leads to another.
3
I think that too much attention is paid to Mary when thinking about the role the virgin birth played in early Christianity. If Jesus had been conceived through normal intercourse, He would have been a normal man. This just a dead rabbi, not a god or Demi-god. Hence the immaculate conception.
2
I find this interview rather silly and uninformative. If you intend to attack such questions as these, doing it in a few hundred seems futile to begin with. I'm sure people on both sides of the argument are left frustrated with this article.
3
« ...given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence)... »
Really ?
4
Someone should probably explain to the good professor what "evidence" means.
10
I can name this song in four words:
There. Is. No. "God."
4
Why would we believe hearsay from 2,000 years ago as "proof" of anything? These were ignorant people who couldn't even read or write. They were told a story and, lacking an concept of scientific proof, decided to believe it, but that doesn't mean we need to. Just because large numbers of ignorant people believe something doesn't make it true.
3
I'm so sick of the conservative media-made-me-do-it narrative. As a Christian, I have watched evangelical Christians in my city wade into other people's lives over and over, judging and cursing them all along the way. The media didn't do this, the evangelicals did. From my time in those churches, service was an afterthought, and when it was done, it was done at a time and in a manner convenient for the church goer, not the person in need. They're much more comfortable judging than helping.
Evangelicals have done more to make the message of Christ repugnant to the non-believer than any other force I can think of. I think they are the reason people are turning away from the church in droves, and it is a sad shame they can stop blaming the media for it.
3
Can you please interview a person of color and/or a woman? There are so many different perspectives of Christianity people who read you are missing out on, especially since the “average” Christian today is not a white male European but a brown/black woman from Africa, Asia, or South America.
2
I think the questioning here is good, but I don’t understand the grinding of Christian believers living the US with hard science, yet treating every other religion practiced outside the US with kid gloves. The NY Times wouldn’t dare publish an interview like this challenging Islam, Buddhism, or any other religion. The leftist principle seems to be people are entitled to their religious beliefs and practices, except Christians living in the U.S.
1
I would suspect that part of the reason beliefs such as Buddism aren't gone after in this country as Christianity is because Buddist don't tell me how to lead my life. they don't tell me what I can or cannot do with my body, what I can or cannot do in my bedroom. They don't back politicians from the pulpit, they aren't on television exhorting me for money for their next mansion or Gulfstream. They leave seem to leave people alone and get the same in return
1
I feel so foolish. It took me halfway through reading the piece before I realized that it wasn't a parody.
11
"religious people donate more to charity than nonreligious people"
Not so fast, Nick. That's only if you consider the church itself a charity: https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2013/11/28/are-religious-people-really-more-generous-than-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/
As Jay Michaelson of Religious Dispatches explains (http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/7417/new_study__three_quarters_of_american_giving_goes_to_religion/):
"religion causes people to give more — to religion itself."
5
"the story of Jesus’ virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke." Wouldn't the go to person for clarity on this issue be Mary, the woman who gave birth to Jesus? It horrifies me how blind people are the the imbedded male supremacy in the world's major religions. Was Mary a virgin or not? Well...let's ask some men...who weren't there...and believe THEM.
4
Nicholas Kristof resurrects William Lane Craig.
These Christian supernaturalists come in all shapes & sizes, from the bombastic to the calm phony intellectual. They are all professional liars who do great harm to the credulous people who are not prepared to defend against their tireless sophistry and special pleading. Considering that harm, I suggest it would have been more Christian to have not given this character a forum.
5
Doesn’t Donald Trump represent the Christians of America? I despise their phlegmatic values with all my might.
7
professor, does the god of abraham both command and commit evil?
1
Will you talk to a person of color and a non-male? I think it’ll lead to even better questions and conversation.
1
The questions posed by Nicholas Kristof are considerably more sensible than the glib answers he got. The good professor is operating at a level on par with the King in Huckleberry Finn, explaining the Greek origin of the his term "funeral orgies" to the riverbank town rubes.
2
you may want to read "The Gospel Truth" by Russell Shorto.
The Greek and Roman culture liked their gods and goddesses. To make an itinerant, uneducated Jewish worker, into an exceptional prophet, required some PR spin over the centuries. The meaning of Yeshu, if any one can manage, is not his death or resurrection or birth but, what he said and did. The Jesus message is not complicated but difficult to follow. Humans are notoriously conflicted and have managed over two and a half millennia to make a mash of his work. The Catholic Church filled a gap that the Roman Empire left at its demise. Its pinnacle is not Jesus but God and a slew of human-made laws and regulations combined with myth and pagan ritual.
William Lane Craig comes off as an aggressive, religious crank instead of a religious scholar with 2 doctoral degrees from eminent European universities.
Did Craig really just proclaim unjustified, sweeping conclusions with no support or were his remarks severely truncated for space?
Was Craig really so dismissive and abrupt in his argument as portrayed in this interview or was the interview edited to highlight his most outrageous claims?
Presuming the interview was actually longer than what is printed, what value is this piece that portrays Christian claims as outlandish and downright silly?
3
It appears that there is a very low bar to clear to be able to call yourself "professor."
Or "pastor."
5
"... independently attested by Matthew and Luke..".
I guess that settles it! I took Formal Logic in college, must be different than religious logic.
2
Today anything that Mr. Trump does not approve is either fake science or fake news. For the last two thousand years it had been Pope instead of Trump.
2
Mr Craig may profess to be a christian but it's not any denomination I've ever heard of. Philosophy is right.
1
Craig’s answers are trivial and vastly dissatisfying.
2
There is simply too much eyewitness testimony supported by other witnesses to ignore the truths of the New Testament as well as the dozens of promises in the Old Testament fulfilled by the Chrstian era to not believe.
Perhaps the most solid current-day proof that the Holy Bible is truth is that no ome making things up out of whole cloth, like Joseph Smith or Muhammed, would have dared suggest that a virgin would deliver a Savior.
@L'osservatore: If the "most solid" proof that Student A is telling the truth when she says the dog ate her homework is that Student B doesn't dare to make up such a story, that should tell us something.
1
Except for that whole prophecy in Isaiah. Which was mistranslated from the Hebrew to use “virgin” for a word that merely meant “young woman of marriageable age.”
This is when we miss Christopher Hitchens most. YouTube his debates with this guy Craig.
3
Men thinking and saying things, that are utterly nonsense, are possible with or without a god.
1
This is an example of a mind closed to interrogation of basic notions many of which are absurd on the face of it, I.e. ‘virgin birth”,”a loving god causing his divine son to become human in order to be tortured and killed because eve ate an apple”,a god who can create a trillion ,trilllion stars but can’t prevent war,disease and famine, and on and on.
Why bother to ask this deluxe or deceptive character anything at all?
4
God, the miracle worker. He worked a miracle and created the universe. Voila !. And a woman is pregnant. Since he won't wipe out cancer in young children and is letting the scientists work on finding a cure could he please make another miracle and help by hurrying them along so that the next eleven year old
won't require a double-leg amputation for bone cancer.
Perhaps we should tax the Churches and use the money for medical research....might prod God to do something to benefit mankind.
Oh, and did we really need this recent tsunami that killed hundreds of people? Imagine the anguish of the survivors.
I know, I know. I've heard it all. God moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.
5
This is where he pivots. Why do journalists allow people to pivot or distract or digress and not call them on it?
How do you account for the many contradictions within the New Testament? For example, Matthew says Judas hanged himself, while Acts says that he “burst open.” They can’t both be right, so why insist on inerrancy of Scripture?
I don’t insist on the inerrancy of Scripture. Rather, what I insist on is what C.S. Lewis called “mere Christianity,” that is to say, the core doctrines of Christianity. Harmonizing perceived contradictions in the Bible is a matter of in-house discussion amongst Christians. What really matters are questions like: Does God exist? Are there objective moral values? Was Jesus truly God and truly man? How did his death on a Roman cross serve to overcome our moral wrongdoing and estrangement from God? These are, as one philosopher puts it, the “questions that matter,” not how Judas died.
1
Sorry had to stop right here.
" Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence)..."
Huh? Good evidence? Or rather forced conclusions on cherry-picked "evidence". That retro fit the conclusion. I can only imagine the lengths Mr. Craig goes in his evidence explanation. Complex design (in itself a reach of claim), perfect placement of various objects in the Universe. And my old favorite, the claims made of alleged witnesses of Jesus, and/or various events - in the Bible. Did Matthew or Luke know Mary before they met Jesus? Did they have access to her OB-GYN records? BTW Mr Craig, Zoroaster's mom is claimed to have been a virgin too. There are like 30 other such claims in ancient cultures. By not recognizing this,Craig should recuse himself from the discussion.
There is also the fact, that according to eyewitness testimony and subsequent documentation of same - Jesus never bases his ministry, nor makes it a requisite belief, in his new form of Judaism, on such an absurdity as a virgin birth.
Since the virgin birth became - centuries later - so crucial to the claim to faith for Xtianity, and Jesus does mention other critical tenets - its hard to imagine he missed the virgin birth claim. Which be about legitimizing his sanction as THE messenger of his God.
Never once, not even a hint from him about his mothers virginity before during and after his birth? If its a crucial lynch-pin in the faith?
Jesus - yes. Myths - no!
2
Wonder Woman is the daughter of God and a human mother. That makes her the sister of Jesus.
2
Religion isn't a description of the natural world. It is an ethical and ritual framework for life.
The Jewish version of the ethical framework, as attributed to Rabbi HIllel, is: What is hateful to you, do not do to others; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn. Christianity frames this framework positively and calls it the Golden Rule. Every other religion has something similar. Of course, not every adherent lives up to this and some commit atrocities in the name of their faith.
The ritual framework includes holidays, commonly tied to seasonal changes or to major life cycle events, such as birth, coming of age, marriage and death. If you think you can invent all of these yourself, just try doing a funeral for somebody close to you, such as your mate or one of your children.
"Jesus’ virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke and is utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology or Judaism"... says the eminent professor.
Um, let's forget the "attestation." In addition, Zeus (of the Greeks) impregnated Semele, then snatched the fetus of Dionysius before Semele died; Dionysius was conveniently couched in Zeus's thigh until it came time to be born. As for Aphrodite, goddess of love, she was born of the foam generated by a godly castration. As for... well you get the picture. The more interesting question would be Why would the all-powerful God risk Mary's life and health by organizing a human birth in a haphazard manger in an unknown town in the first place?
The correct translation for "Virgin" is, " A woman unto herself", which did not originally mean that her hymen was intact:
It meant that she was an Enlightened Woman.
1
Craig destroys his credibility in the first answer when he says that the story of the virgin birth has no parallels in pagan mythology. Wrong! A simple search on the internet brings up dozens of similar stories, dating back to ancient Babylon, when kings claimed virgin birth to cement their divine rights.
Of course, the Catholic Church makes tortured distinctions to claim that these stories are fables, whereas theirs is the truth, even though much of their story was formulated at the Council of Nicae on 325 AD.
Fables.
2
There is no "God" foundation for morality. It's a myth.
1
Why was a Virgin birth necessary in the first place? Supposedly to redeem mankind. But, why? After all, God had a great chance, after the flood, when only 8 people remained to nip in the bud the problems he'd just taken care of. Noah saved the day. But wait! Instead, He let things progress such that within a few hundred years of the flood, 8 people had turned into millions and the Jews were captive in Egypt and then Moses showed up to save the day.
Then Jesus showed up 2000 years ago to save yet another day -- and, precisely, since then what has changed?
Christianity, like all religions, can be summarized as "Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow but no jam today." Lewis Carroll over Noah any day.
Talk about nonsense!
4
Would anyone who reveres Jesus think him unworthy of their devotion if he’d been conceived in the same way the rest of us were?
1
"The story of Jesus’ virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke."
What nonsense! The authors of Matthew and Luke wrote many decades after the events described in the gospels. They didn't even claim to have known Jesus or Mary, so how could they have "attested" to anything about them, let alone something as intimate as her virginity?
2
Dr. Craig reminds me of the countless preachers in midwest who knocked my door every week with an assumption that “I was lost” and Christianity was the only right religion.
2
'Tis the season for the national media to drag out absurd bows to religious fantasies as presented by apparently intelligent persons who nonetheless demonstrate that they are capable of rationalizing just about everything in order to hold onto impossibilities. How tiresome and how predictable.
Ponder the following, Jose and Maria, refugees from Honduras, show up at the US border seeking asylum (not much different than Joseph and Mary looking for shelter) Maria happens to be pregnant and claims it’s a virginal conception believing this would burnish her application.
Can you imagine the howls and condemnation coming from Brush Lintball, Sean Insanity, Ann Poltergeist and the rest of the refuse from the right wing, I dare say poor Maria would end up in a dungeon and Jose would be water boarded to elicit the true nature of this unholy pregnancy. After all as we know Jesus was white.
2
Without going back to check, I understood, according to the New Testament, Mary was underage and by today's stadards not capable of consenting to an impregnation.
The learned professor Craig should know that the virgin birth of heroes and/or saviors pre-Christianity was a frequent myth long.
The Roman savior Quirmus was born to a virgin, the Greek god Adonis was born to a virgin, and the list goes on and on.
1
This is not true: "Historically speaking, the story of Jesus’ virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke and is utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology or Judaism."
Kristof, Public ridicule of a faith never turns out well. Never.
BTW I just realized you didn't drive that guy to suicide over the Anthrax case, you just ruined his life. I apologize for that.
But the public derision of Christina beliefs you are showing today will require more than a simple apology.
"..Born to a Virgin?"
Sure she was, because she was an unmarried female. The word English word "virgin" has the same mismatch from Latin languages as the word "celibate." Anglos define celibate to mean "sexually inactive", while their European neighbors define it as meaning "unmarried."
So Mary was not only a virgin, she was celibate too.
But then, she was married when Jesus was born, and subsequently had several children. Nevermind ....
Donald Trump is not the only person to have discovered the value of meaningless claims that are at once true and false.
"Miracles" are just science that we don't yet understand. That's why two thousand years ago and more, when we understood far less, there were more miracles.
Nevertheless, realizing this doesn't prevent us from feeling awe at the astonishing nature of realities we can barely grasp. We can embrace the marvels of Beauty, Truth, Goodness, and Love without clinging to the explanations of people millennia ago who were struggling to explain the same astonishments and wonders. I know some will ask where in science we can locate Beauty, Goodness, and Love... the answer is a mystery, and a lovely one at that. We are seekers.
Nice work Nicholas, but might I suggest a more apt title for your piece- "Professor, How many logical fallacies, obfuscations, misstatements and lies can you pack into 1,000 words?"
12
Kind of funny exchange of religious ideas, trying to prove what's unprovable, God's existence. We humans are just not smart enough to elucidate that, either way. Insofar Mary's vriginity, the only thing we can attest is that she was a virgen once upon a time...until she had sexual relations with a man, got pregnant, and had Jesus as a result; and, likely, several kids more. Nothing wrong with that...unless we had prudist primitive historians that thought sex was dirty and unworthy of an invented deity. And further, if you were to consider the truism that bread and wine, during Mass, can convert into the body and blood of Christ...which would demand a complete dismissal of what makes us human, reason. Did you ask, by chance, why we would invent a deity that seems oblivious to so much violence in the world, and insult such a noble creature by giving it human qualities and according to our needs and desires? Shall we agree on at least one thing, that believing is 'not knowing'?
1
"The miracle is not walking on water. The miracle is walking on the green Earth."
Thich Nhat Hanh
5
If the Gospels suffice as credible historical accounts, will you believe me if I say that just this afternoon I saw Jesus change a semi truck trailer into a wooly mammoth and then back into a semi truck trailer again? After all, the miracle is faithfully recorded right here, in my comment, just as miracles are recorded in the Gospels. If the Gospels count as convincing evidence, why shouldn’t my comment?
1
The irrational religious faith of Mr. Craig and his tribe is indistinguishable from the state of mind that enables so many to spiral downward into the morass of "alternative facts" and ignorance of the validity of the scientific method.
4
According to the professor, the virginal birth of Jesus was “utterly unlike” anything in Pagan history. However, in point of fact, there are striking parallels to the story of Athena, the Virgin Godess to whom the Parthenon was dedicated (“Parthena” is Greek for virgin.) She raised a son, Erichthonos, who was savior of Athens, divine king, and a great teacher of farming and other useful crafts, according to the legend. Admittedly, the actual conception of the child differs slightly from the virginal birth described in the gospels. During an attempted rape, a drop of semen that had spilled on the Virgin’s thigh conceived the child. However, all of Athena’s actions were directed by Zeus, her holy father and king of the gods. She raised the child as her own, as an extension of the will of this holy father and with the mission to save Athens. In essence, we can view this entire story as a template for the birth of Jesus.
2
In addition, we have the examples of: Zoroaster’s virgin mother conceiving him with a shaft of light; Mithras being born from a rock; and Horus being born from a virgin Isis, with an angel announcing his birth and wise men being led by a star to the site of his birth.
Christianity owes a very obvious debt to many of the mystery cults common to the Roman world of that time. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.
3
To hold that Christianity had been chosen by a supreme being as more authentic that other faiths of world history is an example of the ethnocentric and illogical thinking of theists like Craig. Such arrogance is one of the reasons the Christian canon is rejected by so many people.
Kristof should have asked Rev. Craig to explain the fact that contemporary historians of biblical times, including the meticulous Josephus, either never or barely mentioned a wandering rabbi in early first century Palestine who performed miracles, was born of a virgin, fed the multitudes, healed the blind and the sick, was sentenced by Pontius Pilate, and then rose from the grave after crucifixion and mingled for a while with followers. If such an astonishing character had existed it is inconceivable that he would have escaped the attention of the serious historians of those times. But they were silent on the subject. And there is no secular evidence of such a story.
3
Great, just what we need, a Professor who believes in magic.
1
Why would Jesus even have need a mother—to be born at all? Couldn’t he just have been willed into existence, fully formed? He could have just shown up at temple one day and made a great impression.
For what it’s worth, while I agree with absolutely nothing Pastor Craig says here, the reason for Jesus to have been born of a woman is to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14.
Kristof asks. "Professor, Was Jesus Really Born to a Virgin?"
The virgin birth is an important religious symbol. So everything depends on what is meant by really. Does it mean literally true or symbolically true? Kierkegaard, in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript made this clear in regards to the resurrection of Christ. Did it really happen? It depends on what you mean by really. If you believe it, it’s the foundation of your life, and you don’t have to wait for Hegel to tell you it’s historically accurate. Same with the virgin birth. Same with the symbols that form the foundations of peoples’ lives the world over. Kristof should be aware of all this but doesn’t. He’s a good example of how a man can travel all over the world and still be a provincial.
@JamesEric
The great theologian, Karl Barth, clarified the virgin birth as follows:
“But now all of you certainly notice, that in these expressions ‘conceived by the Holy Spirit’ and ‘born of the Virgin Mary’ something special is still being expressed. The talk is of an unusual procreation and an unusual birth. This thing is called the nativitas Jesus Christi. A miracle points to the mystery of the true divinity and the true humanity, the miracle of this procreation and of this birth.” Barth, Karl. Dogmatics in Outline (SCM Classics) (p. 98). Hymns Ancient and Modern Ltd. Kindle Edition.
No one outside the Church has to accept this, but the whole point of the Church is to proclaim it, and it should be part of an educated person’s intellectual equipment to understand this.
@JamesEric: " Did it really happen? It depends on what you mean by really."
It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
JamesEric, believing something doesn't make it true.
I hate to ask what your next question will be, like who is responsible for the death of Jesus, and whether the curse on Jews was "meant" to be eternal.
Mr. Kristof, these essential beliefs have caused endless misery to the Jewish people. I can almost understand why some agnostics or atheists insist that religion has caused more pain and bloodshed that it is worth.
You are not going to change a believer's opinions, however unreasonable it may be. If you could burst the anti-Semitic hulking menace stemming from fundamentalist Moslems, and the remnants left among some Christians, that would certainly constitute a modern day miracle.
Good luck.
3
Nicholas Kristof I admire you so, but why do you dabble in this nonsense. Listen to the words of your "scholar". "Making a woman pregnant wasn't that big a deal!". Let that sink in. The act of making a woman pregnant and the miracle of creating life was and IS a big deal. And that's the whole point; for some Christian men they can't get over the fact that it's not about them! In addition, thanks for pointing out that this story is corroborated by two other men! It certainly must be true.
1
Giving WL Craig a forum is just absolutely dismaying. He has zero credibility and the spiel of TV miracle glue hawker. He has so practiced his peculiar form of lying for profit that he may even believe himself, the penultimate trick of the salesman.
1
It is possible that an all powerful God can make the miracle of virgin birth. But, let us make an argument that this unnatural event did not happen, and Jesus birth was a natural one from St. Mary. Bible clearly states that Joseph was not the man and Joseph himself was ready to leave Mary when he found out Mary was pregnant. If Joseph was not the man, then who was the man? Most likely the man was a high priest because Mary was very close to the synagogue and priests. After learning that she was pregnant, the priests or people closely related to them arranged the marriage of Mary with Joseph, a low class and old man. This is usually what happens when moneyed people and high class impregnate innocent girls. I am sure there was talk about this injustice in the home of Joseph, Mary and Jesus. This is the reason why Jesus started to question the way of life of high priests and Pharisees, and to preach love of common people. This has a touch of real everyday human life. What has attracted me to Jesus is his ideals and his life. It doesn't matter to me whether he performed miracles, he is a son of God or God himself.
1
You might as well discuss any of the Brothers Grimm fairytales with an equally straight face.
2
“Honestly, Christians have gotten very bad press.” Seriously? Yes, they have and for very good reason. I love you Nicholas, but give up on Christian exploration. The is answer is no. Jesus was not born to a virgin. As my very wise 84 year old mother says...if that were the case we’d have a Jesus story much more often than every two thousand years!
Questioning the basis of Christianity at Christmas
is as unethical as it gets.
1
Mr. Craig tells us that "..... the Christian church is involved not only in defending the sanctity of life and marriage....". Not all the Christian churches are against same sex marriage, birth control, and the termination of unwanted pregnancies. Only a few are against divorce which is clearly condemned by Christ. Mr Craig need to contemplate his Bible a little more.
1
Who cares how the universe came into being? Who cares about a story of a virgin birth? Whatever happened, it was a long long time ago..if it happened at all. The beautiful and amazing complexity of evolution is here before our eyes. If Christians believe God created the world, then why are they not leading the charge to take care of it? If Christians believe Jesus' message, then why are they not practicing it?
1
An aside to the pastor, Christians have earned their bad press through hard work, much bamboozling of the poor and uneducated via TV, and alignment with the negatives of society, i.e., KKK, white supremists and other hate groups.
I take issue with Prof. Craig's statement that Jesus's birth is "...utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology..." Are you both, Nicholas and the prof., unaware of Zeus going around in guises of rainbows, swans, clouds, etc, and impregnating
a host of women? I could take issue with most of the Bible,
but that really popped out with the fact that the statement wasn't contested.
I'm aghast. "for a God who could create the entire universe, making a woman pregnant wasn’t that big a deal!" So Lane Craig, believer in absolute morality - is OK with the idea of the primal rape?
Furthermore, saying that "Historically speaking, the story of Jesus’ virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke" is equally absurd. How do Matthew and Luke know whether or not a woman had sexual intercourse with a man and explained it away by saying "God did it"?
2
The significance of Jesus has nothing to do with his alleged virgin birth. Virgin births were a common literary conceit in his time as it was thought to be an honor to attribute such a birth to certain special persons. If Jesus were truly a human being (which the earl Christian theologians tell us he was) his conception had to be attributed to the union of some man's semen with some woman's egg. Why should this be questioned? Male and female he made them - or so it has been said. Why is it that some folk think there is something "dirty" or "less than desirable" about the way men and women go about making other men and women? I dare say that in-vitro fertilizaton will never be preferred over one simple roll in the hay.
1
Virgin birth for primates is commensurate wtih the magical thinking that supports the talking snake, parted seas, Eve, Adam, Adam's rib, bread from the sky, to name a few.
It's significance as a touchstone for sexual repression is bracingly obvious and has held sway through the history of Catholicism from the Bronze Age and continues apace. Witness the legacy of celibacy for the priesthood for merely a sample how far we, as a "civilized" people have advanced since "we" began making use of fire.
1
Nick, I always appreciate these columns. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the theologians they stimulate thoughtful dialogue around spiritual questions, which we get little of these days.
On another issue: have you considered leaving Facebook? If you choose to stay, what is your rationale?
1
People who are willing to dismiss reality in order to believe in such nonsense are a danger not only to themselves but to the rest of us.
5
@Duxoup
Certainly in the yet-to-be-civilized parts of the world. Where is the greatest amount of strife and misery? Where religion has never been properly separated from state (or tribe or kingdom).
Professor Craig has all the rights to have his own belief system . The trouble comes when your belief system disturbs social harmony and humanity. Western society has advanced because it gives freedom to question belief systems as evidenced by the comments here. Imagine making these comments against belief systems in some countries in the world .You and your family are killed or persecuted
The rationale provided is why the Church lacks relevance and credibility today.
2
Ordinarily I wouldn't comment on another's religious beliefs. I have often said that another's religion looks rediculous until one examines his own. However, when a claim is made of historical or scientific evidence that is demonstrably false, especially when made by a purported authority, I am compelled to speak. Such is the case for the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin as evidenced by the prophecy contained in the words of Isaiah. The error lies in the mistranslation of the Hebrew word "almah" which means young girl, not a virgin. For those that disagree, I recommend https://outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/
If rebirth was proven scientifically, Christians would claim it was always in the Bible. This is not a religion but a corporation. Church inc.
1
An interesting topic and more could be done with it.
Supposedly a woman during the allied bombing of Germany during WW2, an alleged virgin, became so terrified her body went haywire and she became pregnant. An opera titled Parthenogenesis by James MacMillan is based on this event.
Strange, yes. True, who knows but there are enough instances in the non-human world where procreation takes place within a single creature that perhaps the door of possibility needs to remain open.
This may be totally redundant of other comments but obviously there was only one person who would have known with certainty that Mary was a virgin, and that was Mary. And of course Mary may have had good reasons to not be forthcoming about her virginity or lack thereof.
Any other supposed "evidence" as to the immaculate conception is just silliness.
2
Mr. Kristof ... you ignored the elephant in the room!
Why didn't you ask the "Trump question" ... viz, what makes so many evangelical Christians such ardent supporters of the President?
2
Wait... where is this "good evidence" of a "Creator and Designer of the universe" What kind of independent attestation is it when the two writers (Matthew and Luke) in question were vetted and accepted by the same church before we ever read them? And how is this story utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology or Judaism, when Zeus was said to have fathered any number of demigods?
Religion was a human invention to help believers die without making too much of a fuss about it. Nowadays, we oldsters understand and are reconciled to the end without that crutch.
1
What a fine example of proof by assertion. He makes so many statements without any supporting evidence whatsoever. If this sort of thinking is the best that theists can come up with, it's no wonder religion is dying on the vine. Let's be done with superstition and mythology once and for all. Science rules!
As the 12th Son of God, my immediate mission is to simply say that you must now know that traditional religions are very harmful for people; and I shall tell you why.
Traditional religions:
* Stifle independence amongst the poor of spirit
* Facilitate the strident usurping of authority by those in power
* Create a false sense of hope in those with no actual hope
* Temper desires for scientific understanding
* Foster an attitude of well-being at the expense of actual and realistic well-being
* Force an acceptance of one's sorry lot in life
* Urge the use of sham explanations for failed expectations
* Provide too much a spiritual basis for the justification of evil and naturally occurring good
* Suggest that victories and defeats are both the ultimate will of a creator and one's, or a group's, holy alliance with said creator
* Permit the unmitigated control of large portions of populations by the select few religious officials and zealots and nations
* Will generally reinforce authoritarian objections to rock-and-roll, women's rights, freedom of expression, free-will, and individual dissent
* Have created a basis for international and individual mistrust
* Have served to justify feuds, battles, wars, and numerous inequities
* Continuously fan and fuel one's violent sectarian and ethnic flames
* Guarantee dire poverty for most, and amazing wealth for a select few
* Since 1954, have forced Americans to lie when being led to recite their pledge of allegiance
2
@J L S
Can I laugh hysterically now?
2
Like trying to reason with a kitchen table, as Barney Frank said in another context.
Are you serious? Stories about mythical conception by gods were a standard feature of Roman biography at the time. Practically every biographical sketch begins with rumors that the man was fathered by Zeus, descended from Venus, or God knows who. Standard literary device.
1
I'm not a huge fan of Ronald Reagan, but will borrow his "here we go again." Every time religion is mentioned in this paper, many people go berserk.
Religion is faith - based; I can't prove Jesus is God, but you also can't prove he isn't. Guess we'll find out who's right when we die.
@KS
Yes, we'll all be pushing up daisies together!
It is one thing to choose poetry over prose. It is another thing not to know the difference between the two.
2
In a universe that contain magical beings that can do anything, anything becomes possible.
What do we call it when a powerful male has his way with and impregnates a girl without her consent.
Apparently, some people call it divine.
1
Interview a "scholar" from any other religion and ask the same questions with the deity changed, you will get pretty much the same answer in support of the religion being represented. There is no evidence for any of these claims, and to arrive at a collusion about a god without evidence is just dishonest and laughable.
1
@Guest
There is no “evidence” that most of the things we do will deliver what we expect. Belief is something that every human is endowed to direct as they choose and to inform the next action they take. I have no right to take that freedom from you to believe seemingly nothing at all. It is my responsibility to you up until the point you assert your nothingness on my choices.
1
Well, if Mathew and Luke said it...
Evidence, schmevidence. This man is dwelling at the intersection of speculation and wishful thinking.
@Shirley Guttierez
Please list one decision you will make today that doesn’t align perfectly with your ridiculous assertion.
1
Equal time, Nicholas! My grandma used to listen to a prof from this place on the radio in the 50's—according to him the world would end in the 80's. Why not ask the Dean of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral on the same block as your home Congregation Beth Israel in Portland, OR?
With tax-payer subsidized churches, mosques, and temples in most US cities making their case for “miracles,” is there really a need for articles such as this in a serious newspaper? The US needs more citizens to use critical thinking and appropriate skepticism to focus on evidenced-based findings rather than finding ways to justify these old, silly stories.
1
When you read the Bible you are reading actual events, anagogical events and allegories. Anagogical events are spiritually symbolic visions such as Jesus being transfigured more than once in front of his disciples, and within Revelations to St. John.
I agree with Nicholas, if you believe in God creating the Universe what is so hard to believe in Him producing a virgin birth? He is the Master of the Universe and its natural and supernatural forces. It is only physical man, or mankind, who needs to reproduce by the act of physical or sexual contact.
Everyone baptized has the Holy Spirit, or the Giver of Life within. It is the Holy Spirit who implanted Jesus within the womb of Mary.
I believe in God and His son, and God is a very personal God. We all celebrate Him in our lives for different reasons.
47
@Andrea Landry
He? Why Him and not Her? I can't believe anyone in his or her right mind still believes in the fairy tale that is Christianity or any other religion. I have very serious doubts as to whether the next major extinction event will be thwarted by that "guy in the sky." Nature Renewed By Fire Made Whole! Praise the Lord!
69
@Andrea Landry it's Professor Craig you're agreeing with. Kristof has not said he believes what his subject says about the virgin birth.
39
@Andrea Landry I think what you mean to say is YOU BELIEVE (meaning you, Andrea) when YOU (meaning you, Andrea) read the Bible YOU (meaning you, Andrea), BELIEVE YOU (meaning you, Andrea) are reading actual events. The Roman were meticulous record keepers, and yet there is little if any accounts as found in the Bible. You (meaning you, Andrea) may believe whatever you wish, you might even wonder, if there can be a god, why can there not be many gods, since your beliefs allow gods to exist.
72
Why are we so good at missing the obvious? The breath that just came into you and brought you the precious gift of life, is this not a miracle? Where did it come from?
I love this comparison between the divine qualities of God and the divinity of each breath:
GOD - consistent, unconditional, kind and loving, best friend, offers gifts aplenty, non-judgmental, generous
BREATH - from first to last, for better & for worse, feel the kind essence, facilitates everything, brings the gift of life, each breath a new beginning, unrelenting abundance.
The base of the word ignorance is ignore. How can I possibly move through this life without giving due credit to my breath? Minutes/hours/days are spent on crediting and discrediting everything else. Yet solely by the benevolence of each breath does the daily, variegated experience of human existence even lift its head.
But alas, is it on the death-bed with the last struggling chest-heaves that some due credit is finally paid, that I recognize the key to the kingdom dangled around my neck throughout the performance?
Could it be that when I attend to my innate ability to focus within on each breath and appreciate the beautiful, the bountiful, the divine, I am entertaining the meaning of being human? Here, a sense of beauty unfolds, not something beautiful, but beauty itself. A feeling of peace and well-being pervades. Not something peaceful, but peace itself. This is discovering divinity, one’s true self, the true miracle.
The eternal mother took a lump of mud and made a boy. The boy was asked to protect the Earth. The boy protected the Earth and all its beings obediently. God, his father, mistook him and destroyed him. Upon realizing His mistake, God resurrected His
Son and restored him as the Protector of all people.
Now please tell me which tradition this story is from ? Most religions have the same stories and the only reason for bigotry is ignorance of other beliefs.
4
Ok, if this “boy” was created from mud by the eternal “mother”. How does he have a “father”?
I’m sorry, MY god created the universe, not the god that Craig believes in and I have overwhelming and incontrovertible proof of it. Just have faith and trust me on this.
4
Well considering the fact that it's pretty clear that Jesus most likely wasn't actually a real person, it kinda seems like a moot point, doesn't it?
2
With silliness and standards of "evidence" like this, no wonder the world is in such a mess.
And even those who claim to be followers of the Bible can't even follow its ersatz evidence. What did Jesus say about welcoming the stranger (he did not mention walls), serving the poor (like the Donald and his entourage of billionaires?), though of course being against abortion is numero uno- though Jesus never mentions it.
Somebody asked George Bernard Shaw what he thought of Christianity. He responded "Christianity might be a good idea if anyone ever tried it."
3
Mr. Craig may be a gentleman and -- in some peculiar sense -- a scholar, but his grasp of material reality and logical argument is quite modest.
FWIW, here's a quote from a 2015 article in Current Biology on mammalian virgin birth: "As it turns out, even the most famous speculation about
parthenogenesis, Jesus Christ’s birth,
owes its existence not to a miracle but to a human error during the translation of
Isaiah 7:14 from Hebrew to Greek: "The
Hebrew word 'almah' can refer to a young woman of marriageable age, whether married or not. The ‘young woman’ became a ‘virgin’ in the gospel according to Matthew, where almah was translated as the Greek parthenos."
I'll leave it to experts in language studies (rather than "Biblical studies") to critique this claim, but its accuracy is not necessary to render the claim of virgin human birth completely unjustified both rationally and empirically.
See
or this link.
2
A simple question: If the evidence for Christianity is so compelling and consistent with rational thought, why do Judaism and Islam even exist? They share many of the same assumptions and concepts as Christianity (monotheism, existance of historical Jesus, etc.). Are Rabbis and Imams blinf=d to all this compeeling evidence? Why so?
Science Reason Common Sense and Observation indicate that there are no deities. Christianity at its core is based on blackmail. You have to believe the unbelievable in order to be saved. Balderdash. When I die I'm perfectly content to become nothing forever.
2
George Carlin:
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you ... Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure."
"Don't just teach your children to read. Teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything."
4
"What's the problem?" To start with, it is very likely that the original word was mistranslated to mean what we currently consider "virgin" to mean. Next, the Gospels were written many years after Jesus died. Up to a hundred or more years later, so how can one be so certain that they are accurate? Especially given that pregnancy of an unwed young woman was almost certainly stigmatized at the time, it's possible (provable) that, even if Mary and Joseph told others that Mary had never had intercourse, they probably did so to save her from scorn or worse. Additionally, while it might be physically possible to get pregnant without having sexual intercourse (consider modern-day self-insemination by some women who have obtained seamen), it was then not physically possible to get pregnant without any contact whatsoever with a man -- maybe there was sperm on a finger or, as Ruth Westheimer liked to remind people, "pre"ejaculate can contain enough sperm to initiate pregnancy.
But if one believes in an all-powerful, interventionist God, then right, a single non-sperm initiated pregnancy seems possible. BUT it begs the question of why such an all-powerful, interventionist God would choose or bother to do so? Why not just make the baby appear? Or, for that matter, just create an adult without need of a vaginal birth from a human female? God supposedly did that with Adam, so why not Jesus? Would've made him seem much more godlike, which is what the trinity says is/was the case..
God said it.
I believe it.
That settles it.
When your entire philosophy can be reduced to a bumper sticker and half America agrees, it isn't hard to figure how we got into this mess.
2
As far as I know we cannot even find real evidence that Jesus existed so why are people still stuck on his mythical parents. Believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. It's such a joke and can't be proved so it is a ridiculous argument. We see ourselves as so important that we ignore all the other animals that give birth or something close to that, We have used religion and faith for more cruelty and horror in history. What a joke. And evidently our forefathers believed that sex is evil or why would Mary be the only woman to be able to give birth without a man. What other reason would they invent this fairy tale. I can't believe people still take this seriously.
1
"virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke..."
What were Matthew and Luke doing there? And if in fact they were contemporaries, or near contemporaries, of Jesus, shouldn't they have been at home asleep like the little children they were? And I think parenting these days is bad...
1
Mr. Kristof,
Your credulous tone in this interview is frustrating. Not only is this theologian anti-Enlightenment and anti-science, which is hardly a surprise, but he is deeply prejudiced. Well, that's not a surprise either, but why don't you comment on his radical inconsistencies? The New Testament, he claims, is based on "facts," while the Old Testament is nothing more than a collection of myths. This is recycled anti-Semitism: Christianity has rendered Judaism obsolete in the Christian doctrine of supersessionism. Of course, he also has to denigrate "false claims in other religions."
Can't you just call out this false sense of superiority for what it is, or at least let him know that there are flaws in his destructive belief system?
1
Is there an Oscar for “Best Cherry-Picker” for issue-referencing? I know it sounds like an arcane category, but since this guy was selected to answer for Christianity, his performance here should definitely win something.
A fool and his beliefs are never soon parted.
1
I love when religious people try to use the language of science and rational thought. Words like evidence and proof. The only way one can accept religion is to deny logic. And yet even the religious bend them selves into knots trying to "prove" they are correct.
1
It frustrating to know that Matthew and Luke provide two completely different birth of Jesus stories and see people believe both of them. Just like Genesis 1 and 2 have completely different creatiin stories and people believe both of them.
I call my belief system SCRAPS: Sentimental Christian, Rational Atheist, Predictably Switching. In moments of awe or fear, I pray as a Catholic. But if you ask me about the origins of the universe, I'll talk about quarks and gluons, not Adam and Eve.
I live with, and take responsibility for, my contradictions as an adult. I don't feel the need to warp science to validate my faith, nor do I need to abandon faith to harvest the practical fruits of science. I also find secular arguments for compassion -- the basis of morality --compelling. I find Craig's arguments circular and self-serving, not logically or empirically convincing in the slightest.
Also, while self-described Christians might donate or volunteer more, many vote to strip the poor of the very assistance that the rest of us agree to support through taxes. Soup kitchens and volunteer projects are wonderful at generating some social benefits (and mostly for engendering a sense of community) but grossly inefficient in delivering basic services. Economies of scale favor SNAP over soup kitchens hands-down, and the Christian way forward is to "render unto Caesar" the taxes needed to continue it.
1
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing?
Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing?
Then why call Him God?"
-Epicurus
6
Belief without evidence, extravagantly elaborated into a “school of theology,” to then be swallowed whole and regurgitated by both the credulous and the unscrupulous.
1
Are the teachings of Jesus really so extraordinary? Don't the key teachings of Jesus about interpersonal behavior in fact appear in virtually all major religions?
3
I'm confused. Is Dr. Craig saying that a religion based on the 5 books of Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings alone are filled only with "figurative language of mythology" as opposed to Christianity, which he states is more credible? I'm trying to figure this out.
2
Even if we suppose that there is a God that created the Universe, to suppose that this God can act in the universe to do miraculous things - to impregnate a virgin for instance - is to suppose that this God has some reason not to do other miraculous things in the Universe - such as eliminate malaria for instance - that would improve the quality of human existence immensely. Or in other words it is to suppose that this God is evil.
Rather: belief in a theist, immanent, interventionist God is evil.
"Evil can best hide not in darkness but a light that blinds."
3
Why does Kristof describe Hinduism as a faith of the past? Aren’t there more Hindus than Christians on this earth? So an interview about what we do or do not believe about Shiva and Krishna would be more useful ...
1
I recommend John Shelby Spong’s book, Unbelievable, for look at the virgin birth, miracles, etc. He is a biblical scholar and Episcopal bishop who explains why and how these stories were added to the story of Jesus and how Christianity needs to move past them.
2
Aside from the question of Mary's virginity, it takes a leap of faith to explain another part of the Christmas "Story."
A census was ordered by Caesar Augustus because the Roman government wanted to make sure that all citizens in the Empire were paying their taxes. Families had to register in the their historical tribal town rather than where they lived. This meant that Joseph and a very pregnant Mary would have had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, as this was the town that Joseph's family came from - a journey of about 100 miles!
It is a stretch for me to buy into the myth of this part of the Nativity tale. How could a 9 month pregnant Mary ever make so arduous a trip in her state? Then again, there is always the possibility that the trusty donkey we see on Christmas cards got her to the manger in time for the birth of Jesus.
2
@HMP It's absolutely ridiculous. First of all, the Romans kept very meticulous records. We have records of lots of Roman censuses, and in NONE of them did they require people to leave the region that the lived in and travel back to where they were born. The Romans didn't care about where you were born, they cared about where you lived and worked, because that is where they would collect taxes from you. At no point in history did the Romans require people to move around like that in order to conduct a census. The just showed up in a town, counted people, and then collected silver or grain from them.
The very Idea that I should believe in the religous explanations of events that occured thousands of years ago that have no historical or factual proof is to me, ludicrous. Plain and simple.
4
There isn't any doubt that it's possible. Any virgin today could, through artificial insemination, be impregnated.
Where the sperm would have come from, I'll leave to the scholars who study those kinds of things. But there isn't any doubt that it's possible today and that, using more rudimentary methods, would have been possible 2,000 years ago, too.
“Virgin” may well have meant a woman who has yet to have a baby. But whatever. Some people need to believe in a story. It doesn’t have to make sense. I’m not one of them.
2
And I quote: Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence)...
I cannot believe that somewhat educated, reasonable persons could ever make a statement like that. Such statements are made by persons who are stuck at age 7 cognitively. Please read some philosophy of science and history. Then I don't want to hear from you anyway. Sorry. The truth can hurt.
3
while there are many people all over the wolrd who claim some form of Christianity while doing good, noble, and selfless works - there appears to be just as many supposed Jesus followers whose behavior is an abomination of all that Jesus modeled and preached. To claim that "Honestly, Christians have gotten very bad press." suggests that it is the media coverage which is the problem when in fact it is the judgmental bigoted xenophobic people who call themselves Christian that are to blame.
1
Oh my. Oh please. Professor. Evidence of God? Evidence of miracles? Please. Show us the evidence. Is the evidence as sound and clear and ringing and incontrovertible as the C major key on the piano? Please strike that note, professor. Show us the empirical evidence. There is no such thing as a virgin birth. Nobody walks on water. Nobody comes back to life after they are dead. It is not humanly possible. It is not physically possible. Have you ever witnessed such events? Documented such events? Photographs? Videos? Your faith is folly. It belongs to the dark and medieval ages, and would keep us in the dark and medieval ages. And paying for it continually. Do you notice that the most expensive real estate throughout the world belongs to The Church? Please cling to your faith if it floats your boat, as a drowning man holds on to the capsized vessel. You want to believe in such divine stories from millennia ago? Good for you. But please don't foist or encourage such bygone and hopeless views upon the timid and afraid in 2018. We are made of sterner and smarter stuff, and must be, if we are to fulfill our human destiny, however bleak or promising that may be.
4
Wow. It's mind-boggling to see this type of convoluted irrationality so directly and confidently expressed. It makes Christianity look pretty bad.
And yet, if you had asked the same questions of others who identify as Christian, you would have received very different answers.
3
Not only was Mary depicted as a virgin, she was a married virgin. That always seemed like an oxymoron to me. What was Joseph's problem there? The shepherds who came up with the story probably decided that God would not impregnate some innocent young maiden nor would he follow behind some mortal man so they made Mary a married virgin.
1
@Clark Landrum Exactly. If Mary was married, there is no chance whatsoever that she was a virgin. She might have been a virgin until her wedding night, but part of a wedding during that time is the consummation, and the idea that they just skipped that part and went off to live together is absurd.
"Historically speaking, the story of Jesus’ virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke and is utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology or Judaism. So what’s the problem?"
And what about Sara, who was pregnant by God?
And what about the Greek Mythology, who had Herakles (among others) who were born to Gods?
Sorry, but I stopped reading after Dr. Craig's answer to the virgin birth question. First, the statement that the "virginal conception . . . is utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology or Judaism" is contradicted by numerous claims of virginal conceptions in the ancient world. See, e.g., https://www.hope-of-israel.org/originsVBmyth.html (or just google the question for many sites discussing the issue). Second, Dr. Craig engages in circular argument by saying that it would be child's play for an all powerful god to effect a virgin birth. Perhaps, but the virgin birth is used to prove the existence of such a god. This argument is unpersuasive because it assumes what it attempts to prove and is part of an unfalsifiable belief system (see Karl Popper). Third, to say that Matthew and Luke are independent of each other ignores over 100 years of Biblical scholarship that says they share one or more common sources. The third and oldest synoptic gospel, Mark (written about 30 years after the death of Jesus), says nothing about a virgin birth.
The miraculous conception of Jesus is part of a fantasy that belongs to another time and place and has nothing to do with the validity of the ethical teachings of Jesus.
5
Christianity was not the first religion to claim that their god was born of a virgin. Horus, a god of ancient Egypt for one and many others deemed it necessary that their God's not have mortal father's or that their mothers be chaste.
How to Believe in God in Six Easy Steps
1. First, you must want to believe in God.
2. Next, understand that believing in God in the absence of evidence is especially noble.
3. Then, imagine that the human ability to believe in God in the absence of evidence might itself constitute evidence for the existence of God.
4. Now consider any need for further evidence (both in yourself and in others) to be a form of temptation, spiritually unhealthy, a work of a devil, or a corruption of the intellect.
5. Refer to steps 2-4 as acts of faith.
6. Return to 2 when questions arise.
3
as usual nick, an incomplete job. This school falls under the Southern Baptists. As such they are a far cry from Roger Williams and the American Baptists. The views of this line of southern theology are generally neither as informed nor progressive as what used to be called mainstream Protestantism. While Southern Baptists may be proud of their parochialism, the rest of us are equally proud to be free of it.
1
Ahh fairly tales are nice to hear, but they are just that stories made up to justify a bad narrative. Mary was a much virgin as I am.
1
About 2000 years ago, a remarkable man was born in a remote part of the Roman Empire. His mother was told that he would not be mortal but, in fact, would be Divine. She gave birth to him in a miraculous way. As an adult, he collected disciples around him who came to believe that he was the son of God. And he did miracles to prove his divinity -healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead. At the end of his life, he ascended to heaven. After he ascended to heaven, he came back to visit one of his followers who was a doubter. Some years later, some of his followers wrote books about this man. But I doubt if you have ever read any of these books or ever heard of this man. The man was Apollonius of Tyanna a pagan philosopher active some 50 years after Jesus and widely known in his day. In fact there were debates between the followers of Jesus and the followers of Apollonius concerning which was the son of God and which was a fraud.
The guy who really was incredible was Paul. He created Christianity out of thin air. Pretty impressive. Heck, the Gospels tell us Jesus told his followers they would see the end of the world in their lifetime. Oops.
4
What I tell my charges in my confirmation class (8th grade) is this: we will never know the answer to the question of Mary’s virginity, so what we have to ask ourselves is “will the answer effect our faith? Does the idea that Mary May have had a physical relationship change how we understand Jesus’ message? The same applies to Jesus’ possible marriage. Does the idea that Jesus lived a full human experience change how we feel about his teachings? If so, why? To many of my students, the obsession with female virginity seems anachronistic and our discussion quickly turn to the larger issues of the day. As they should.
2
‘That Jesus carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcisms is so widely attested in every stratum of the sources that the consensus among historical Jesus scholars is that Jesus was, indeed, a faith-healer and exorcist.’
That is an interesting affirmation. And where can l read about some of these stratums of sources? I thought that outside the Gospels the only mention of Jesus is in Josephus?
If the Reverand had indeed studied other religions, he would have know that the mention of virgin and/or miraculous births are pretty common across all mythologies and religions.
Here's a Wikipedia page on it ...
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births"
The story about birth of Jesus is neither unique nor believable just because it is mentioned by Matthew and Luke - who by the way were not backed up by other Gospels - and have themselves contradicted each other on many other details.
2
1. The historical evidence for the divinity of Jesus Christ is no stronger (or weaker) than the historical evidence for the divine inspiration of Muhammad or Joseph Smith.
2. Even if the virgin birth were original to the Christ story, which it is not, telling a story for the first time does not make it actually happen.
2
You lost me at the very beginning when the professor said that there is a lot of evidence for the existence of god. Bertrand Russell, who with Whitehead put mathematics on a logical basis, went to jail (well, a cushy one) opposing WWI, helped many people financially, and got the Nobel Prize, was asked what he would do if when he died he was confronted by god asking why he had not believed. He replied that he would say "but Lord, you didn't give me enough evidence!"
1
Pure hokum. Old and New Testaments. Nice fables and many good parables about living a caring and honorable life but belief in ANY god is at odds with science and reality. Put down your books, stop the incessant prayers and do the good work Jesus implored you to.
3
Mary's mother, St. Anne, did not conceive for many years until her much older husband Joachim went on a trip. When he returned home, Anne was pregnant with Mary and declared to Joachim it was an "immaculate conception." Years later, Mary ran the same game on her husband Joseph (the apple certainly didn't fall from the tree).
For Mr. Kristof to accept Mr. Craig's claim that a virgin birth is no problem to pull off for a god who created the universe, is extremely naive. The "miracles" that appear in the New Testament were written by Christians who had a point to make. There are no objective witnesses in the New Testament who can verify any of the claims Christians have made about Jesus. But yet, Catholics accept the idea of the Immaculate Conception (Mary's birth) because Pope Pius iX in the middle of the 19th Century declared it so.
To quote Ebenezer Scrooge: "I'll retire to Bedlam."
3
Mr. Kristof, you should have asked more difficult questions. After all, who really cares about a virgin birth? How about this: Why did God create flawed creatures in the first place if he is so perfect? He could have spared himself the trouble of having his only son be crucified to save us all, if he'd only have made us perfect like himself. But no, he had to give us flaws like jealousy, hate, ignorance, greed and all the terrible rest. Explain that logic Dr. Craig. Seems like God is one power hungry entity he didn't want any competition whatsoever. Anyway, I love Jesus' teachings, but I also love the teachings in other religious traditions. There's so many events in our own day that are perplexing, that we're all still trying to figure out like how did Trump really get elected? Why do terrible things happen to very good people? So much more and here we are talking about virgin births...
2
The strongest argument against the existence of miracles is just how lacklustre those ancient miracles are to our modern eyes: water turning to wine, walking on water, faith healing and exorcism; seem to us—in the age of DNA modification, space telescopes peering billions of years into the past, quantum computing and artificial intelligence—as little more than dusty parlour tricks. These so-called “miracles” wouldn’t even impress the audience of a Las Vegas magic show, let alone stand up as convincing evidence of an infinite power and associated worldview. Just how uninspired these miracles are is all the proof you need that these acts didn’t arise from some divine imagination, but the unsophisticated imaginations of people from a much simpler time.
3
Read "Born of a Woman" by retired Episcopal bishop of Newark, New Jersey, John Shelby Spong (1992). Accounts of the Virgin birth do not appear until hundreds of years after the life of Jesus. Early messianic sects in the Holy Land were vying for dominance. John the Baptist was said to be born to an elderly woman. That miracle story had to be topped if adherents of Jesus were to win out. Spong presents his argument (unlike my crude synopsis) with plentiful quotations from early religious and historical sources.
1
Is it possible the fault lies not with God, or Mary, or science, or our ability to have faith in this question (or not)? Is it perhaps simpler to assume someone writing or translating the gospels used the word "virgin" instead of a more correct word?
Like "young"?
But Mr Kristof, you let the professor off far too lightly!
First, Jesus' record of miracle-working. Well yes, but the Roman Empire of those days was full of competing miracle-workers. Just look at Simon Magus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus).
Or better still, read the satirical essay "The Passing of Peregrinus" by Lucian of Samosata (who would have felt very much at home writing Op-Eds for the NYT). There's a translation here: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/lucian/peregrinus.htm which gives a vivid impression of the hothouse of competing beliefs and opinions that was the Roman Empire in those days. The rumours of miracles swirling around Jesus are not at all surprising; miracles were credited to every famous thinker from Pythagoras on. They emphatically do not prove that Jesus thought of himself as a miracle-worker.
Second, we should pay attention to what is NOT there in the Gospels. Jesus did not ever, anywhere, say that he was God. One would have thought he would have mentioned it. At least once.
And third, another thing that is not there: the public reaction to his resurrection (if it actually did happen). This was a man who had already drawn crowds of Five Thousand. Once word got out that after being so publicly executed by the Roman occupiers he had returned to life and was back with the disciples the crowds would have been much larger: believers plus sensation-seekers plus anti-Roman zealots. But no mention of that at all.
Why not?
3
"Weakly evidenced false claims in other religions"?
The professor's condescending dismissal of the believers in Krishna, et al, doesn't prove anything but his own bias.
3
Who cares, is this all that’s on our minds this season?
Gee I wonder, was Joseph an apprentice before becoming a carpenter or was he born that way?
1
Whenever my parents would drop some anti Semitic remark, even as a child, I’d remind them that Jesus was a rabbi.
Either way, I’m okay with whatever the truth of Jesus life may be. I almost prefer that he was a simple carpenter’s son.
Look at our so-called educated, evolved culture. Look at the President who was elected because of his imaged gilded in fool’s gold. Human beings are foolish. Why would they believe the words of a simple carpenter’s son? Humans seem to need some kind of proof of legitimacy, whether it’s a degree from a fancy university or a large bank account to listen to profound wisdom.
If Jesus showed up today and said brilliant things, but was just, say, a mailman’s son, or bricklayer’s son, or the child of an illegal immigrant, would anyone listen? I feel that Franklin Graham and the Fox News would be the first to drill nails into his hands and feet. What credibility is there in one man’s simple words of love?
So they had to dress him up as a Demi-God.
I’m okay with Jesus being just a man, a simple carpenter’s son. If he was a Demi-God, bonus, but I don’t need that.
In the age of Trump, where evangelicals vote for envy, greed, lust, wrath, pride, gluttony, and sloth, I prefer to go quietly on a walk and confer with a greater power than myself.
I’m okay if Jesus is just a simple carpenter’s son. His mom was a mom. We are all the children of God.
1
Jesus had a brother, James, remember? If Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, she didn't remain one forever.
Regardless, Jesus' father, Joseph, is hardly mentioned in the Gospels, and never mentioned by Paul, the earliest new Testament writer. In all likelihood, Joseph didn't live to raise his sons, to witness Jesus' ministry or his execution.
Who cares? Is the mother of Jesus any less Blessed for conceiving naturally and raising her sons by herself? Is Jesus any less miraculous for being human as we are?
Religion has been the primary cause of world strife for over two millennia, driven by the narrow-minded, hypocritical beliefs of men - men - like Mr. Craig. "Weakly evidenced"? Does he not understand that a fundamentalist Muslim would likely say the same about Christianity? "I don't insist on the inerrancy of Scripture"? Then why is Scripture always cited as the "gospel" to restrict human rights for the LGBTQ community and women?
2
"Why should we suspend our emphasis on science and rationality just because of weakly evidenced, false claims in other religions?"
Wow, there's sweeping things under the carpet, but this one is a doozy.
3
I would have preferred that Nick ask this theologian to explain why so many "Christian" believers willingly turn their backs on people of other faiths, the poor, the downtrodden, the uneducated and the physically or mentally limited. If they proclaim to be followers of Christ, how on God's green earth did a "Christian" nation end up with Donald Trump as President?
3
To say there was no such thing as a virginal birth in “pagan mythology” is not accurate. I’d invite Rev Keller to consider the birth of Romulus and Remus and read Euripides’ Ion (for just two examples). Also, there was a trove of testimonies from Epidaurus on the god Aesclepius’ miracle cures.
Virgin births were a common belief a while back, along with a flat Earth. And today both beliefs persist in those finding the modern world hard to face.
3
" Why should we suspend our emphasis on science and rationality just because of weakly evidenced, false claims in other religions? "
That sentence alone shows Mr Craigs bias to any believer's story other than his own.
1
Fairy tales, myths and fables. There is no more truth to the stories in the Bible than there is to attractions at Disney World. What is fascinating is how grown ups can discuss these alleged occurrences with inappropriate seriousness and gravity.
3
Sorry, but the subjective writings of men 2000 years ago do not prove the existence of God. Because humans can’t explain the “creation” of the universe doesn’t mean that God created it. And how do we know that if there is a God, it has the attributes we ascribe to it? There simply is no evidence or proof whatsoever that God exists.
And virgin birth? If being a virgin means that no act of copulation has ever happened to a woman, could artificial insemination be considered as the inceptive event of virgin birth? An why does it matter anyhow?
Belief in God and the virgin birth are just that: belief. There is no objective evidence of either. Even a good theory has to have some basis in observable fact, as in Darwin’s origin of species or Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Religions exist because our limited minds cannot understand infinity - no beginning and no end. So there must be a God to fill the void.
2
well. I had to stop after the first answer...utter nonsense...I'm re-watching Joseph Campbell's series with Bill Moyers on Netflix now...how anyone can see their Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. religion as something other than an expression of a mythic fiction is beyond me...not that there aren't spiritual truths in all religions, but to buy into the myths as historical truths (and that your religion is the one, true way) seems to me utter nonsense (not to mention the harm that this thinking has caused through the centuries, and is still causing)...
2
That there’s One Creative Entity is common sense knowledge. Giving It a name and calling It the only one is man’s creation and imagination. Making that as male, White, or other ego-boosting qualities is the bane of the world Europeans created and the wars, divisions, hatred and greed that we see today! Ultimately, it looks like Quantum Mechanisms may prove to be the Miracle Maker! Moral values or Dharma is where civilization can sustain itself only by respecting the Nature as we experience it and enjoy it, reverentially!
I have read about the birth of Jesus in Matthew. chapters 1 and 2 and the story in Luke, chapters 1 and 2. The stories are different and happened at a different time. In Matthew, Jesus was born of a virgin when Herod was in power. Herod died in 4 B.C. In Luke, Jesus was born of a virgin when Cyrenius was governor of Syria in 6 A.D. In Luke it is plain that the birth was viginal. Matthew, Chapter 24, 25--"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife; And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son; and he called his name JESUS.' After reading the Bible, I had several questions about the birth of Jesus and the Bible as a whole.
When my wife and I were separated for 2 years and never engaged in intercourse she gave birth twice. So, I know for a FACT that virgin births are not only possible, but very common!
3
Elizabethtown College in Central PA, is a Church of the Brethren related college.
The church and college relationship demanded that the college offer courses in biblical study and the professors, all but one, took the position that the New Testament is the new, liberating, joyful good news of the arrival of the Savior. They made the point that the New Testament replaced the Old Testament. They asserted the Jews, whose hearts were hardened, rejected Jesus and were unable to leave their old, outdated beliefs and remained excommunicated from god and heaven. Jews were unable to see the "New light of Heaven." However, the professors would also unceasingly assert that the "Old Testament" could not be put aside because it was the "foundation" of Christianity. A conundrum for these professors was how to explain why they both condemned the Hebrew Bible, reviled its inability to compel its readers to accept Jesus and then accept their belief in the prophecy of the Hebrew Bible while simultaneously rejecting all other aspects of the Hebrews. The professors constantly offered love and repugnance without a satisfying explanation. Freud likely thrived on the love-hate relationship created by the publishing of the Old and New Testaments.
To increase their conundrum, physical historical evidence of the existence of Judaism defied claims of a New Testament. Perhaps the Old Testament is not a Hebrew word "nefesh" a corpse. Maybe it it translates Hebrew "waters of the soul". Essential to life.
1
No matter how one assesses the validity of the Matthew and Luke accounts, it's doubtful that anyone comes to faith because of the story of the virgin birth. The earliest Christians probably had no such belief. The first cohorts of believers were Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah that they had been told would be coming. The main miracle they believed was the resurrection, and they also trusted accounts of various miracles that Jesus was said to have performed. The theology of Jesus' divinity was developed over time and perhaps at that point so did the narrative of his birth. Whether that was made out of whole cloth or not is certainly worthy of discussion - if you've traveled down the road of faith far enough where it matters.
There's a line in Hebrews 11:6 that basically says the foundation of faith is believing that God exists and that it is worthwhile to get to know God. That's relevant to this discussion because it's pointless to debate the virgin birth if one does not believe that God exists or is relevant to the affairs of humankind. Why debate this alleged miracle if one begins with the assumption that miracles are by definition impossible? Or that God isn't all that interested in people?
My guess is that the professor in this piece spends nearly all his time around people whose frame of reference presupposes so many aspects of Christian faith that he really doesn't know how to deal with those who are outside those parameters.
1
As a person of faith and a regular participant in Christian Sunday services (Episcopal) I have no trouble distinguishing the facts of the life of Jesus (not really born in a manger to a virgin) from its truth — that within each person and in each situation, somewhere we can find grace. Sorry that Kristof chose to observe the holiday with this literal thinking, which only alienates and confounds the thinking reader.
Merry Christmas.
3
Dr. Craig is an able debater, and his arguments for the existence of God deserve to be taken seriously, even though I personally don’t accept them. His arguments for the reliability of scripture, and the existence of miracles, however, are much less compelling. The problem these days is the assumption that one must be either a Christian who believes in the supernatural, or an atheist who believes in the blind watchmaker. I think there is an alternative position, which I call naturalistic theism, which is much more sensible, and consistent with both science and the many nuances of human experience. https://www.academia.edu/35251245/Naturalistic_Theism
1
Dr Craig uses the phrase “consensus among historians” with regard to some of his claims.
There is an even stronger consensus among climate scientists that the Earth is warming because of human activity, and yet the strongest opposition to this scientific consensus comes from people pushing Dr Craig’s alleged consensus.
4
Hmm: "Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence), an occasional miracle is child’s play." "Why should we suspend our emphasis on science and rationality just because of weakly evidenced, false claims in other religions?"
2
Reading this guy’s opinions makes my eyes roll. There is no historical record of these miracles happening including the virgin birth. The Bible is not historical. Occasionally it weaves a true event into the fiction, but beyond that it’s all just mansplaining and male control, something we’re just coming to grips with 2000 years later.
3
Dr. Craig says that the Gospels fall into the category of biography, in the vein of Plutarch. But nearly anyone who has read even a small amount of medieval history knows that "biographers" made up incidents all of the time. They repeated hearsay, and had no way of verifying the factuality of nearly anything that they wrote. That accounts for all of the discrepancies in the Gospels, because if each author involved in their composition was repeating something they heard from someone else, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else, you're going to get a result that resembles the outcome of a game of Telephone. Also, these stories were transcribed and translated multiple times. I work as a translator, and am intimately familiar with the problems that arise with translation. Some of the monks who transcribed early scriptures were illiterate and had no idea what they were copying, either. My grandfather was a Bible scholar of some small note back in the day and he would've laughed at this guy and his absurd claims. And he wouldn't have dismissed other religions or beliefs as cavalierly as this silly man. And he would have said that there is nothing wrong with skepticism toward the Bible, because part of faith is the individual's struggle to reconcile the contradictions between real life and what God wants us to be. No wonder Christianity is in such bad condition these days, if this nonsense is what passes for scholarship.
4
"Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence)"
I should have stopped at this claim, actually the interview could have ended here, since there is no "good evidence". There is only belief and faith, neither of which would be accepted in any fact-based discipline as evidence. Added to this nonsense is the parsing and cherry-picking of acceptable truths.
If you feel a need to believe in a personal god, or a creator of all things, have at it. Just don't pretend your faith is science-based, or by having faith your moral compass points to a truer north than the non-believers.
As to Craigs' position that his god is the real god, presumably because it's the god he choose, though more likely, it was the only god he was indoctrinated with.
Hume may have the last words, "...because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."
7
@buddhaboy Well said.
1
I strongly recommend that Mr. Craig watch the excellent PBS documentary, "From Jesus to Christ", in which level headed Christian scholars discuss the probable realities behind the endlessly mulled over life of Jesus Christ. The people interviewed are clearly devoutly religious, but they are also sane.
2
The idea of Jesus as a historical figure, dedicated to peace is wonderful. His being the Son of God born to a virgin is hard to swallow, equally as hard as most other biblical events.
Most modern humans are atheists when it involves Zeus or Poseidon or any of the other Greek gods who were used to explain the unknown, so we’ve winnowed the god list down to one God to explain what we have yet to understand and Jesus was his son? I’m afraid that doesn’t make sense to a lot of people. Giving credit to what we have not yet learned to a deity seems a little simple-minded.
2
"Historically speaking, the story of Jesus’ virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke and is utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology or Judaism."
Um, I respectfully disagree. Jesus being "born of a virgin" is not singularly unique, but rather incorporates other traditional virgin birth stories. Horus of Egypt likely the most familiar to New Testament writers. A lengthy discussion of the parallels between Jesus and other deities of antiquity may be found here:
https://www.lawofattractiongps.com/not-just-jesus-other-virgin-births/
Christianity doesn't want to admit how much it has assimilated and drawn from local cultures and other ideas, e.g., selecting the time of the Winter Solstice to coincide with the birth of Jesus, i.e., the birth of the sun with the birth of the Son. Doing so may soften the idea of it being a divinely inspired and given, but would in no way dent the value of it being a line of story every culture tells itself to explain the larger questions, nor diminish the imperative given by Jesus, to "love thy neighbor as thyself."
5
To distill the arguments of WLC to their essence saves a lot of time.
"Assuming that all the stories in the Bible are true, surely you can see how all the stories in the Bible are true."
That is the only argument that he has ever made.
3
The proof of fact is not the equivalent of fact deduced through lack of evidence. We live in this what-about world today, and this argument seems to be “what about Matthews testimony “ etc. The fact is Matthew was written 100 or so years after the death of Jesus. Taking this into account writing a similar testimony today about the sinking of the Lusitania with no documents would probably not get it exactly correct either. Versions would either be biased based based on the perspective of the people on the ship or the people who sunk it.
1
Professor Bob: "Well, my man, the chances of the character referred to in the writings as 'Virgin Mary' in realty-time, i.e. off the playhouse stage, giving birth to a child are about the same as a male, even a MTF transsexual, giving birth to a baby. Actually, ponder this: science in 2018 is on the border of being capable of enabling males carrying a baby and giving birth. Conception is another entirely different matter for all three, but your question referred to 'birth'. "
God created the world in 6 days. This is not inconsistent with science. Einstein proved to us that time is relative. The more mass of an object the slower time moves. Time on Jupiter moves slower than the time on Earth. God encompasses all mass in the universe, thus, time for God moves very slow. A day for God can easily equate to a billion years, relative to a day on earth.
The story of Genesis is often used to prove the absurdity of one believing in the Bible. Take away the assumption that God made the earth in one day of a human and substitute it with an Einsteinian day of God and 6 days to make the earth as we know it is not absurd at all.
Merry Christmas
'I get the impression, Nick, that you think science is somehow incompatible with belief in miracles.'
mir·a·cle
/ˈmirək(ə)l
noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
The two are, BY DEFINITION, incompatible. A true miracle is not something that we cannot yet explain with our current scientific understanding - it is something that can NEVER be explained by science. It is something that defies science. Water turning into wine. Multiplying loaves. Transubstantiation. Chatty burning bushes. Resurrection from the dead.
To believe in miracles is to believe in magic.
3
Those who are attracted by the supernatural Jesus events are those who are blind to the real “Christ” within. Even if Jesus did not exist (as some scholars believe) the question we have to ask ourselves is – does it really matter when it comes to right and wrong - if we can’t see it ourselves. As the philosopher Kant, and all wise persons (old souls) would say, the truth lies within us. Ultimately, there is no man or woman who can save us from ignorance but each one of us. Until we understand this, we’ll continue to use religion to divide us.
Religion is a set of moral codes that binds a community together. Faith is the willingness to take what is given at its face value, without questioning. One can be religious without being faithful. Have it any way you want. One case of having your cake and eating it, too. Any attempt argue anyone’s faith is pointless by definition
1
I was in a church listening to an organ concert yesterday - I'm an atheist. The cross struck me: what an amazing symbol! (This particular version didn't have a suffering, sad-looking man hanging from it).
If you give the early Christians the benefit of the doubt, that their intention was to unite humanity, then the cross as a symbol of "one human" - a head, body, arms outstretched (welcoming?) - is quite simple and beautiful.
Indeed, Christianity is one of the most successful efforts to bring masses of diverse people into the same belief system. If they could just get rid of the supernatural hooey, the lust for power and the silly doctrinal rule-making...but I guess then it really would be something not of THIS world.
After the Great Depression caused the plutocrats and corporations to lose all credibility, they shifted their image financing to religion, knowing that most Americans still trusted their churches. They financed promotion of the slogan "In God We Trust" and whole religious movements designed to shift the blame for the Great Depression from them to Divine Providence.
One writer at the time described DuPonts "In God We Trust" campaign as being as transparent as their main product at that time; CELLOPHANE.
The religious are as easily gulled today as they were then; fortunately there are fewer of them.
2
I am truly baffled by a "professor of philosophy" who so blandly dismisses reason and scholarship.
What "proof" of the created universe is he referring to? Does anyone know where the bible describes dinosaurs?
For me, the most telling phrase was "when I was a non-Christian." Converts often have to be the most zealous, and the most blind to obvious contortions of logic required by their faiths, because they chose to believe, not having been conditioned to it at a young age.
2
Craig claims there is a great deal of evidence that Jesus' mother was a virgin. Really? What kind of evidence? That many people long after her death said so? What is considered evidence by theologians would be instqntly dismissed by any honest journalist.
9
This is unfortunately an inappropriate column, since it represents only the perspective of a fundamentalist and fails to include the abundance of academic data. How can we be people of faith in the divine mysteries when science, archeology and history are forced to the sidelines?
6
Take a course in critical thinking, or read a book on the topic. Understand how good arguments are made--even what they are! No strong arguments can be made supporting a belief in miracles. No strong arguments can be made supporting a belief in "free will." It's not about proof, it's about justification.
1
Essentially the professor says "I want to believe. Do you have a problem with that?" This is the only answer that can be produced in response to probes into a belief-based system, religion.
Treating unexplained phenomena as acts of God might have made sense at the time, perpetuating them is the questionable part which will always get the response above. Believers will believe simply because they want to. The commonality of virgin pregnancy will not convince them otherwise.
2
You can tell a Christian by their love~! Many that claim the title fail the love test. How does today's Christian Right meet the test?
8
"the Gospels...aim to provide a historically reliable account."
But they do no such thing. The Gospels are what we call "hearsay," written by anonymous priests and scribes decades after the fact.
24
Mere Christianity was instrumental for me. The journey took a year, but at the end, it was a leap of faith. I just focus on the New Testament. Jesus was a shrewd politician. He had to bridge the gap between the old and the new. He did so brilliantly. Obviously.
1