Born of a Virgin. How do atheists pretend to disprove that?

Tiburon

Well-known member
It' not been overlooked. It's in Matthew.

Can you tell me why there is a plethora of history books on the Civil War and none of them is identical. Think about it.
But in the case of the Virgin birth we are talking about an allegedly major event? That would be like leaving out the "Battle of Fort Sumter".
Mark came first so why would he leave it out? Did he not know about it? Were virgin births a dime a dozen at that time?
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
It is. However, if it weren't, it wouldn't matter. It is in the canonical manuscrpts, and it is confirmed in Isaiah.

Sure it is. The prophecy says the virgin will name him Immanuel. The meaning of "Immanuel" in Hebrew is, literally, with us God.

Jesus is God.
how is it "confirmed"?
How do you demonstrate that an author didn't just include or refer to Isaiah in order to give credence to their story?

But it doesn't really matter. Virgin births are fiction; it doesn't matter what some unknown person claimed thousands of years ago.
 

Howie

Well-known member
But in the case of the Virgin birth we are talking about an allegedly major event?
Yes, and the world and history knows about it.
That would be like leaving out the "Battle of Fort Sumter".
Ummmm, it's not left out. God had Matthew record it.
Mark came first so why would he leave it out?
Only God knows.
Did he not know about it?
I'm sure He did.
Were virgin births a dime a dozen at that time?
Ummmmm this is the only virgin birth of God's Son I've ever heard of.
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
Yes, and the world and history knows about it.

Ummmm, it's not left out. God had Matthew record it.
God had someone add it to Matthew after Matthew was written.

How do you disprove the fact that it isn't in the earliest copies of Matthew?
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
It's not my burden. I didn't bring it up. You did.
I forgot, you don't know how this works...
The burden of proof doesn't fall to the person b who brings it up, it falls to the person holding the position.
Your position is that it exists in the earliest Matthew texts.

However, it is a rhetorical response to the idea that atheists need to disprove the virgin birth.
 

Howie

Well-known member
I forgot, you don't know how this works...
The burden of proof doesn't fall to the person b who brings it up, it falls to the person holding the position.
Your position is that it exists in the earliest Matthew texts.
LOL. You brought up first that it isn't in Matthew. I have no burden to disprove that.
However, it is a rhetorical response to the idea that atheists need to disprove the virgin birth.
Ok, and I've never said atheists need to disprove it.
 
Last edited:

Tiburon

Well-known member
Yes, and the world and history knows about it.

Ummmm, it's not left out. God had Matthew record it.

Only God knows.

I'm sure He did.

Ummmmm this is the only virgin birth of God's Son I've ever heard of.
So God told Mark not to bother mentioning it because Matthew was going to include it in his gospel?
Sounds real plausible.
 

Howie

Well-known member
Isaiah 7:14 says "young woman" and was a prophecy for king Ahaz, not pointing to a future messiah.
Right. I know. Thanks, or maiden, aka, virgin. The NT Greek translates as "parthenos," or "virgin."

Not so. The prophecy says she will call the child, Immanuel, which means God with us, not she will call him king Ahaz. Read it.

I hope that helps
 
Top