Legal case for the virgin birth (so that ELF will see this)
Brian Dean bridean@worldnet.att.net
Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:51:20 -0500 (00918208280, 19990205034911.ERKC23934@briandea)
>>BRIDEAN
>>A transcendent omnipotent creator is not necessary in order to posit
>>a "virgin birth". She could have had sexual intercourse with a female
>>unicorn and still fit Till's definition of "virgin" as having never
had
>>sexual intercourse with a "male". All Matt would have to do is
>>prove that Mary never had sexual intercourse with a "male" and then
>>prove that she nevertheless became pregnant. Sounds like Matt
>>has his work cut out for him.
>>
>
>TOM:
>
>It is not for Matt (should he accept this as a topic which relates to
>errancy) to prove *a* virgin birth, but *the* virgin birth.
>
>BRIDEAN
>Till didn't state anything about "the" virgin birth. He merely posited
>as a debate topic that Jesus was born of a "virgin".
TOM:
I'm not quite sure what you're missing here. The topic of debate is
regarding an account given in the Bible. This is *the* account of the
virgin birth of Jesus by Mary.
BRIDEAN
Similarly, the account of the virgin birth of Mithras would be "the"
account of the virgin birth of Mithras. In other words, invoking the
three letter word "the" does not make this "virgin birth" claim
significantly different from any other "virgin birth" claim.
>TOM
>Since the events you specify are impossible to empiracally verify,
>Farrell has therefore asked Matt to argue within a legal/historical
>framework of evidence.
>
>BRIDEAN
>And you would prove that legally Mary was a virgin how?
>Perhaps with Clinton as your attormey you could argue that "virgin"
>doesn't really mean "virgin" legally. As far as historically, I agree
>that historically Christians have accepted this particular "virgin"
>birth. So that would prove the "virgin" birth how?
>
TOM:
The legal/historical method of evidence is a method of formulating
proof, not a Clintonian play on definitions. It deals with presenting
historical information in a legal fashion and building a case on
preponderance of evidence.
BRIDEAN
In that case, since there is a law student on board, please present
your "legal" case for the "virgin birth". I will change the topic so
that our resident "legal expert" can see it and judge the relative
legal merit of it. Since you have no eyewitnesses though, it seems
your "legal" approach is going to fall short.
As far as "historical" the only thing you can verify historically is
that Christians believed the "virgin" birth from the beginning. I'm
sure you could prove that the Moonies believed that Rev. Moon
is God from the beginning of Moonieism too. I don't see how a
mere belief constitutes historical proof.
>TOM
>Context is essential and it is the very context of the story
>of the virgin birth which gives it credence over the hagiography of
>others such as the mother of the Buddha (about which someone recently
>wrote an excellent post.)
>
>BRIDEAN
>In other words, "virgin" doesn't have to mean "virgin" if you look at
the
>context.
>
TOM:
Only you have brought up an idea that "virgin" doesn't mean "virgin".
Whatever your point is, it's not mine.
BRIDEAN
What "context" would be involved where "virgin" would mean anything
other than "virgin"? If context is irrelevent to the definition of
"virgin"
then either Mary was a "virgin" or Mary was not a "virgin" REGARDLESS
of "context".
TOM
For the sake of helping you
understand the significance of context and reasonablness I will
illustrate. How reasonable would you find this story. A man X is
fleeing man Y. Man Y shoots at man X. In order to dodge the bullet man
X leaps off a 150foot cliff. While falling 150 feet through the air,
man X does multiple twists and flipes to avoid the shots from man Y. By
doing so, man X survives the fall and escapes unscathed and unbruised
and lives today to tell the story.
BRIDEAN
Since the distance traveled from gravity is 16 ft/sec^2 this means
that his rate of speed increases 32 feet per second every second.
(since the derivative of distance traveled is speed). Since he traveled
for sqrt(150/16) = 3.0618 seconds he would be traveling at 97.9795
ft/sec when he hit the ground. This is about 66.8 mph.
TOM
The context of the story may transfer the story from a James Bond movie
to real life. Man X is a world champion cliff diver. His leap for life
was off his familier cliff in south america. Now the story becomes more
reasonable.
BRIDEAN
Exactly how does the context make it more reasonable that a
person won't get hurt when traveling 66 mph when he hits the
ground? If there was a big air filled balloon on the ground and
he landed properly I might see your scenerio being the case.
But a James Bond movie is INTENDED to be fictional so we
usually dismiss such discrepancies because of the "context".
Is there anything in the "context" of the Bible which shows
that it is intended to be fictional?
TOM
The context fills in facts which make the story plausible.
BRIDEAN
I still don't find the story plausible. But then the "context"
indicates that it is not necessarily meant to be "plausible".
Is there something about the "context" of the Bible which
indicates that it is not meant to be "plausible"?
TOM
Without the biblical context for Mary's virgin birth, the story is
foolish and unbelievable, just as Farrell, while preaching forty years
ago, found the story of the Holy Spirit conceiving in a young girl
ludicrous. There was no context for belief.
BRIDEAN
Even assuming that a fictional story such as James Bond stories
make the above scenerio "plausible", please explain how the
"context" of the Bible makes the "virgin birth" story of Mary
plausible.
>TOM
>While they are not necessary for your
>mythical ideas of a virgin birth, they are the crux of context which
>makes the virgin birth a reasonable belief to hold. The event, history
>and context are inseperable.
>
>BRIDEAN
>So if she was only a "virgin" in a certain context then this suddenly
>becomes a reasonable belief to hold? In that case, why don't I
>argue that since the Jewish ritual bath was required after a certain
>time after intercourse that Mary fulfilled that requirement and was
>"clean" according to the context. Since this occured much earlier
>than when she actually gave birth, she was "clean" when she
>gave birth and therefore she was a "virgin" in the context that she
>did not have sex with a man in that time frame. Would this context
>make "the" virgin birth a reasonable position to hold?
>
TOM:
You seem to have some type fixation on the definition of virgin. I
don't. Maybe you've been watching too much impeachment hearing ;)
BRIDEAN
I am just trying to clarify how the "context" has any bearing on
whether or not Mary was a "virgin" if you are not defining "virgin"
according to the context.
>TOM:
>
>It is not significant who Jesus is not. It is very significant who
>Jesus is.
>
>
>BRIDEAN
>And if Jesus did puff from the rough, this would disprove the virgin
>birth how?
>
TOM:
Again, with context. If I told you I was raised in Buckingham palace by
the Queen's servants, but you know me as the guy down the street who
works at McDonalds and "puffs from the rough" would you believe me?
BRIDEAN
I might if I had sufficient reason to. If you were raised in the type
of environment you claim and you later on fell into severe misfortune
(which DOES happen) then I don't see why you ending up at
McDonalds and "puffing from the rough" would be an unreasonable
end result. The likelihood of such a scenerio would be sufficient
to cast doubt, but working at McDonalds would NOT constitute
evidence against having the background the person claims to have
had.
TOM
What if my name was Charles, and I rolled up in a Chaufered Rolls Royce
by Royal pallace guards? What if I WAS the prince of England? Now
would you believe me, or at least find my story plausible?
BRIDEAN
It would be more plausible than the above story. However you could be
a guy who had just recently won 10 million dollars in the lottery and
paid a bunch of Royal palace guards to drive you around in a Chauffered
Rolls Royce so that you could claim that your name is Charles, just
for a good joke. There is nothing in the above that would "prove" that
you had the background you claim to have.
TOM
If you don't believe that context is critical for plausibility of events
and stories then I really don't know what else to say to you. Enjoy
your world.
BRIDEAN
None of your scenerios would constitute proof of anything. I saw
some women on Maury Povich who were once millionaires but
now collect welfare! Not that I find Maury Povich to have credibility,
but I found nothing unreasonable about what was presented.
If you want to believe that everything always continue to be good
for rich people and always continue to be bad for poor people then
I certainly don't envy your world view.