Originally posted by googlefudge
Causing a woman to have a 'virgin birth' should not be at all difficult for the god described in the bible.
I would think first it would not be difficult for any all powerful Creator for whom the existence of the universe is do.
However you have, as ever, got it backwards.
The 'virgin birth' along with all other miracles is claimed as evidence for the
existence of your god.
It is not claimed as the
only evidence for God. So I don't see a problem.
You cannot therefore assume that such a god exists in order to be able to
explain the events that you then use as evidence for god.
I can assume that there is accumulating evidences, of which the account of miracles done by God are among other evidences.
Actually, I can count the existence of a book like the Bible itself to be an evidence.
The god of the bible is generally assumed to do basically whatever it wants.
It can do anything logically possible.
On occasion God is reported to have done something to make a point.
That is part of God's communicating with man to help man to He Who and what God is.
So anything could be 'explained' by saying god did it.
Given the character of God in the Bible, no, I would not say anything could be explained that way.
The birth of Jesus Christ is not an isolated neat trick. It is important to the narrative that we examine
Who it is that was born. His birth, His sinless testimony, His words, His deeds, the manner in which He voluntarily died (being absolute for the will of His Father), and the resurrection all accumulate to make a case for God's existence.
Which is why 'god did it' doesn't explain anything.
I see no rational high ground in your reply. The question I had was why would it be difficult for a Creator of the universe to create a virgin birth.
I think the right answer is that it probably wouldn't be.
That's all.
It's possible that IF the god of the bible existed that it could cause a virgin birth.
That's right.
Now we go on from there, to decide if one believes that it happened. I have been persuaded that it did.
The power of the alledged event certainly corresponds to the power of the personality and His impact on human history.
However there are a number of natural biological situations that can result in virgin birth, and we have no convincing evidence that such a birth actually occurred.
I don't know that.
But as I said, it is not the birth of someone in a vacuum. The nature of the Person said to have been born this way is rather consistent with the unusual mode of His arrival.
It is history that the experts in the Hebrew Bible expected a Messiah to be born in Bethlehem of Judea. And that is what they told King Herod when foreigners came looking for some "born king" of the Jews. They referred Herod to the prophecy of Micah.
Now there were plenty of boys born in Bethlehem. But there was only one who lived in a way which is consistent with the words of Micah 5:2 a
" ... Ruler of Israel (though temporarily opposed and rejected)
And His goings forth are from ancient times, from days of eternity."
Jesus acted and spoke as one with eternal preexistence. And His conquering death suggests His is an indestructible life.
Many were born in Bethlehem. Only one lived and spoke as someone from eternity. And such a one could have arranged to be incarnated anywhere He chose, being transcendent over time.
So I don't just take the virgin birth by itself, isolated and in a vacuum, and figure "Well, this could have happened without God."
I take in the other contributing factors and decide upon an accumulated case.
So you are left with an event that may very well have never happened, and even if it did can be explained naturally.
Again, to this we might say "One down, five hundred to go."
The other factors of this Man's life, deeds, words, character, and impact on history build up an accumulated case for God becoming a man or for God sending His Son.
God is totally unnecessary.
By isolating this one virgin birth, you are saying "God is totally unnecessary."
But it has more of the feeling of you
wanting God to be unnecessary, generally anyway.
I think this is simply your preference for the "total" unnecessariness of God.
The prophecy of
Micah 5:2 was there in the Scriptures of the Jews for centuries. And the whole controversy of Who is the Jewish Messiah so rages around Jesus as the strongest candidate, coincidence, biological or otherwise, is less a logical choice than that perhaps the real God of Israel is involved.
How could this mistaken virgin born person orchestrate the circumstances predicted ? That He is actually Who the prophecy states is not an unreasonable belief.
Baby Jesus
23 Dec '13 14:14
Back to Top