It seems that one of the major stumbling block for non-Christians is the Resurrection. Why is it not the virgin birth?
Discussion
6 comments
-
The resurrection was included in the gospel message and 3000 people believed it on the day of Pentecost.
-
If you come from a background believing the christian narrative to be a falsehood, the claim of the virgin birth is a much smaller ‘lie’ than that of the resurrection. There have probably been countless births in history whereby a women has claimed miraculous impregnation in order to avoid public disgrace or punishment; it is quite difficult to *prove* what actually happened either way. Miraculous resurrection on the other hand has a much greater burden of proof, as the facts concerning the persons death and resurrection (at least if the death is public) are rather harder to deny if true.
I think that to someone who doesn’t really understand the christian faith, the nature of the virgin birth can really be overlooked as almost a story narrative that isn’t that important (i.e. “does it really matter if it wasn’t a virgin birth?”), in contrast christians do a much better job explaining to the general public the necessity of the validity of the gospel/christian faith on the reality of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Paul himself proclaimed that our faith is meaningless if Christ didn’t die and rise again. Of course the fact that Jesus’ conception was immaculate is critically important for His personhood as the son of God, but I think that’s not as obvious to many who are stumbling or trying to defy the Christian faith. Coupled with what I said above I think that probably goes some way to explaining it? Of course some people will find it more of a stumbling block than others 🙂
-
A virgin birth is not technically impossible. If a man ejaculates on a vagina without penetrating a vagina, it can lead to impregnation. It is very unlikely but not impossible.
-
Its a pre supposition brought to the text. If you pre suppose there are no miracles possible you naturally cut out that part of the text.
-
Anything supernatural is a problem for atheists. Naturalism, science as a gage of truth (especially outside of the hard sciences), historical scepticism (biased against anything in a biblical context), and over confidence in their ability to access everything outside their knowledge base (instant experts on scripture and religion) makes for a worldview hard to challenge because proofs, historical evidence, philosophical viewpoints, logical reasoning is discounted as dumb, any evidence can’t be considered because it’s “religious” and therefore tainted.
-
The resurrection is not something modern medicine has replicated.
Picture if you will a fertilized embryo implanted in the womb of a teen girl who has never known a man.
It’s technically a virgin birth.
It relates to the mind as possible.
But coming back from the dead and living like the Bible says??
Science offers nothing.
Comments