Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

Some Skeptics never seem satisfied. It was our contention in our article on the virginal conception of Jesus (hereafter VC) that indeed, it is not something that can be believed because of evidence beyond what is attested in the Scriptural texts; it is accepted -- or rejected -- based entirely on worldview. The VC can only be accepted after one has put together complex proofs for the divinity and authority of Jesus; the VC can only be rationally and definitely rejected by denying the same (either directly or through the common Skeptical back-door against the miraculous ever happening). Nevertheless a recent forum frog styled "Limax" deigned to place his soiled hands upon our text; quite predictably, he ended up with his hands bitten, though he thinks he was getting a manicure. This character represents an example of the worst sort of forum-hopper: the arrogant freethinker who is incompetent and unaware of it, thinks "So what?" or "Prove it!" constitutes a refutation, and spells "religious" with an E. At any rate, one of our own readers pointed him to our challenge for critics, and he chose the article on the VC as his subject. Now to that. Our original thoughts are indented and in normal type; his reply is indented and in italics.

The view of Brown [Brow.BirM, 527-8] and Meier [Meie.MarJ, 222] is ultimately correct. The evidence and the nature of the virgin birth simply leaves questions of its historicity unresolved and unresolvable - and one's decision regarding it will be based inevitably on preconceived notions. This historical event isn't one of the sort that leaves tangible footprints.

Limax must be so accustomed to the idea of fundamentalists (atheists or Christians) writing on the VC and speaking of it as a proven fact that he couldn't get the concrete out of his cerebellum to see how my perspective was different. Hence all he did was make the standard reply of Skeptics which has no relevance whatsoever. Of course I don't list evidence - I have already said that the nature of the evidence (merely literary/historical) is such that it is not sufficient to constitute absolute proof. The only possible hard data confirming or disconfirming such an event would involve a detailed medical examination of Mary. How then can Limax have the nerve to suggest that such a view is incorrect? We can produce no hard evidence for; Limax can produce no hard evidence against -- his only argument at all will turn out to be, "Miracles just don't happen" and "Ancient people are stupid." (Note as well that in spite of his final comment, he went ahead and read the whole paper anyway!)

It is ironic how this paragraph attributes all opposition to "PRECONCIEVED NOTIONS", as the whole theory of "virginal birth" was created (by the church) in a time before common man knew anything on genetics (I would like to point out that only the educated at the time knew any knowledge on genetics- used mostly for breeding animals), and thus used PRECONCIEVED NOTIONS (eg: that it is possible for a sexual organism to asexually reproduce).

We do beg Limax's froggy pardon, but this paragraph is riddled with weasels. It did not take knowledge of "genetics" to know that having a baby required -- excuse me -- sexual intercourse. It required two to tango, a seed from each plant, and the ancients knew this. "Genetics" was not required for this base knowledge and Limax offers not a shred of literary or historical evidence to the contrary. (It's also an episode of hot, buttered weasel to think that breeding animals requires such knowledge -- it does only if we define "genetics" at the lowest common denominational level. What relevance that blatter about asexual reproduction has, I cannot say. I believe Limax's mind had wandered off.)

Nevertheless, there are plenty of reasons to have to get on the defensive where this subject is concerned -

"How can you believe in the virgin birth? It's not mentioned anywhere else in the NT besides Matthew and Luke. This indicates that it was either a late invention or one not favored by the early church, because the other NT writers would surely have mentioned something this remarkable and relevant."

This sort of objection demonstrates a lack of realization that there is NO relevance for the virgin birth in the places where it is lacking mention. Remember, the NT materials were written to people who ALREADY believed the Gospel. By the time the were reading this stuff, they had already accepted all of the basic tenets, and already had all the basic information. Furthermore, Paul (and I would also argue, the other epistle-writers) was writing "problem-oriented" letters - so that there was really no need to go out of the way to mention anything that he did not have pertinence for.

This "counterargument" only says that the areas that didn't mention virginal birth in the case of Jesus' Conception don't specifically state that it wasn't virginal conception, arguing that "the author who wrote that... uh... ASSUMED that you knew it was virginal."

That's correct, and there isn't a thing wrong with that, and Limax doesn't show that there is anything wrong with that, other than by anachronizing and imposing his own gee-golly mentality on the texts:

I don't know about the rest of you, but if I read a story about a woman conceiving [sic] a child back before they had in-vitro fertilization, I would naturally assume it was sexually, as would everyone else. To assume that every coneption [sic] that ever took place was virginal unless it was specifically stated not to be would be very very dumb.

No one said a word here about "every conception" -- we are speaking of a specific conception, the VC, and in that regard Limax has offered no answer. His answer ignores the pertinent points about lack of relevance in context (to counter that, he needs to show the relevance existed in the texts, and he doesn't even try); it ignores that readers of Paul's letters and the Gospels already would have had this data in hand long ago.

I will add two other factors I have discovered in the interim since writing that article. The first is the simple factor of space -- the Gospel writers and Paul had only so much in terms of writing resources and no room to enter into diversions in context just to satisfy a modern, graphocentric Skeptic. The great majority of transmitted information would be oral, not written, so it is absurd to declare that there is a problem because a certain written document from this time lacks information we think should be in there, just because we have a Gomer Pyle attitude about it. Second, as Malina and Rohrbaugh note in their Social-Science Commentary on John [16ff], the NT was written in what anthropologists call a "high-context" society. In such societies people "presume a broadly shared, well-understood, or 'high' knowledge of the context of anything referred to in conversation or in writing." Readers were required and expected to "fill in the gap" because their background knowledge was a given. Extended explanations -- as there would be on the VC -- were unnecessary. In contrast, we in the modern US are a "low-context" society. We assume little or no knowledge of he context of a communication. Malina and Rohrbaugh set forth in summary what we now use as a stinging indictment of Limax's methodology: "The obvious problem this creates for reading the biblical writings today is that low-context readers in the United States frequently mistake the biblical writings for low-context documents. They erroneously assume that the author has provided all of the contextual information needed to understand it." Thus it is absurd for Limax to say:

If the author who wrote the passages that told of Jesus' wanted to convey that it had been virginal, s/he would have included that snippet of information, as proper language rules dictate that if an event took place under circumstances that was other than is assumed, you include the circumstance.

To put it bluntly, Limax's "proper language rules" are a case of anachronism, and a case of low-context affliction. Of course even under our "rules" (where are these rules listed, we wonder?) he is also making an assumption that the authors in question "wanted" to convey such data at all, having seen a need to do so.

Limax demonstrates his low-context impairment with the following example:

"James drove to the grocery store."

The passage states that James drove to the store. The reader assumes that James drove there in a car, thus it is unneccessary [sic]for the author to write:

"James drove to the grocery store in a car."

But what if James didn't drive to the store in a car as the reader assumes? What if James drove there in a Moped? Then the statement:

"James drove to the grocery store."

Would not convey the message the author wanted to get across [sic], as the reader would wrongly assume James drove in a car, when in fact James drove in a Moped. Thus the Author must write:

"James drove to the grocery store in a moped."

To convey the message to the reader correctly, because mopeds are not the first things that spring to mind when one thinks of vehicles one drives in.

Unfortunately for Limax and his low-context impaired viewpoint, the high context of the ancients means that "James drove to the grocery store" told them he was driving a moped, because prior to this statement, everyone would know that James drove a moped, having been told that he drove a moped and that it was the only form of transportation he used. Of course this applies as well in our world, though only to the extent that those who knew James well (his family or close friends) would be able to assume without specific "moped mentioning" that James drove a moped. The larger circle of persons would not know, and would need to be informed (if indeed they needed to be). As noted, the NT is written by Christians, to Christians. Therefore all persons involved are the equal to James' family and friends, and the VC warrants no more mention than any other miracle associated with Jesus unless there is a specific reason to do so. Limax has offered no counter for this at all beyond the Gomer Pyle argument.

Beyond that, Brown [Brow.BirM, 521] observes that the virginal conception "would have become the subject of preaching (and therefore likely to be included in the kind of writing we find in the New Testament) only when its christological significance was seen." He also observes that the primary theological doctrine associated with the virginal conception (that Christ was thus not tainted by original sin) was first cited by Augustine. (ibid., 530) That being the case, we may suggest that the NT writers did NOT observe any christological significance in the virgin birth per se - any more than they did in any of Jesus' other miracles collectively. Hence, there was no need to go out of their way to report it, and we may agree with Anderson, who observes that all we can therefore say about the silence of the rest of the NT is that the virgin birth was simply "not a ground on which (the evangelists) called others to faith." [Ander.MI, 16]

Heh, "Christological".

Heh -- what's the point?

The above paragraph says (summed up): "The Virginal Conception is a true fact, and thus didn't need to be repeated by NT (New Testament) Writers."

Limax again seems to have so much concrete between the ears that he can't conceive of any argument other than, "The VC is absolutely proven/disproven." I have already said that one can only accept (or reject) the VC as "fact" based on preconceived notions, and I did not tie the positive factuality of the VC to lack of mention by NT writers -- I was responding to a claim of negative factuality by critics and showing that that claim offers no good reason for rejection. This does not poof into a positive claim of factuality, and Limax has only imagined that I said it did. Beyond that he has, still, no real answer for this point.

It also says: "Because they never say anything other than Virginal Conception, it's a fact." This is what the educated like to call "Circular Logic".

This is what the truly educated call, a "Straw Man." Or better: "Attention Deficit Disorder." I would like to see anyone show us where we argued for a cause-effect relationship showing that "never saying anything other than VC" is equal to positive evidence for the VC (as opposed to showing that never saying any other alternative allows us to assume that there were others running around, otherwise unattested).

The NT Writers could very much have been talking about Jesus having been sexually conceived [sic]. They couldn't have been talking about Virginal Conception, because they would have included that little fact in their writings whenever they mentioned Jesus' Conception. That is unless, at the time, everyone who could read automatically assumed all Conceptions that are written about are Virginal unless written otherwise.

As we have already shown, this is nothing but Limax anachronizing his Gomer Pyle mentality on the texts, and there is no requirement with reference to "all Conceptions" -- only Jesus' in particular. Limax will repeat this screed again; we shall ignore it hereafter.

Indeed, though he does not explain why, Brown suggests that adding the virgin birth to the preaching of the church would have "opened Jesus' origins to ridicule and calumny" [Brow.VirgRes, 61] - but we may guess why. There would be the inevitable comparisons to pagan myths, or, the charge of illegitimacy - just as occurs today!

D'oh, wrong! It's open to ridicule because it's biologically impossible, infeasable, technologically out-of-reach, and violates the most fundamental law of biology (reproduction)!

This is the standard Skeptical screed against the miraculous ("I haven't seen any, so there must not be any!") and we will spoil that party in a moment, but first we may note that Limax is anachronizing yet again. The ancients would not have objected to the VC on the grounds stated: "biologically impossible, infeasable, technologically out-of-reach, and violates the most fundamental law of biology," etc. Limax has just stated that biological knowledge was limited, so how on earth could they have objected on those grounds? They believed in the gods; the Jews believed in a God who had created the universe. They would not have considered a VC out of reach for a deity -- indeed they would have seen that as peanuts and popcorn compared to other mighty feats the gods did. D'oh?

Now as for that screed, I'll spoil the party with the usual I have come to bring against it. Impossible? Not feasable? Out of reach? Violating laws? God can create ex nihilo, but did He need to? Organizing a VC would require no more (if desired) than manipulation of matter on a molecular level -- theoretically possible, even if out of reach of our present technology, in a way that would violate no laws of biology. Not that God would need such technology. Nevertheless the screed that such would merely be "impossible" is itself uni-dimensional and worthless. It would not be impossible, except for a man with nothing but a hammer and some nails. It merely would require the right "equipment" and an omnipotent God would have that equipment, in spades. Once again: it comes down to our preconceived notions, and Limax has only supported, not refuted, my primary thesis.

After a repeat of the Gomer Pyle screed, we get to:

...the doctrine of the virgin birth was not formulated for the sake of a theological line of thought; it is simply a supposedly 'apostolic' piece of biblical tradition that was handed down.

We have now reached the weakest link in the chain that supposedly links The Holy Bible to Truth: The fact that it was passed down via oral tradition centuries before anyone bothered to write any of it down.

We can smell the bigotry and anachronism coming from miles away:

I've tried sarcasm in the past, but these religeous [SIC] nuts are immune to wit, thus I will have to be blatantly obvious:

Stories that are told by mouth, heard by ear, cannot possibly be verified and are stored only in memory get EX-AG-GER-AT-ED. Anyone who has ever played a game of telephone when they were a child will be able to immediately confirm this.

I've also tried sarcasm in the past, but bigoted Skeptics are immune to wit, and to education, thus I have to be blatantly obvious: In the ancient world, stories that were told by mouth, heard by ear, can indeed be verified by the ancient social network in need be, and were stored only in memory were H-I-G-H-L-Y R-E-L-I-A-B-L-E. Limax's comparison to the game of "telephone" is a sign of his ignorance of oral transmission in the ancient world, a clear-cut case of cultural bigotry and temporal provincialism. One may click the link to see how. (Beyond that, it also was not "centuries" in this case, but even by the reckoning of the most late-dating Biblical scholars, only a few decades.) So much for Limax's bigoted conclusion that orality equals "can't be trusted."

There is more repeating of the Gomer Pyle factor. There is also an amusing gaffe as Limax suggests that Matthew "forecasted" the VC as a prophet! And then this spell of ignorance:

Finally, it may be that the virgin birth was directly alluded to in the Gospel of John. Torrance [Torr.DVB, 10] points out that John 1:12, if reckoned in the singular rather than in the plural (as it is in some patristic cites) explicitly indicates a virgin birth. But because this evidence is questionable, it is best left to the side.

Huh?

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Er, where does it explicitly indicate virginal birth here?

IF in the singular, in John 1:13 -- somehow Limax managed to have me only speaking of John 1:12, when in the article I explicitly write "John 1:12-13". Is Limax paying attention here?

"Why believe this doctrine? It was rejected by several Christian groups. The Ebionites (who were the descendants of the Jerusalem church) and certain Gnostics rejected it. [Heine.PACT, 173; Phip.PaulSup, 51] Their objections need to be taken seriously."

To begin, not all Ebionites agreed on this matter! Origen [Mach.VBC, 21] and others recorded the existence of two sects of Ebionites - one that believed in the virgin birth, and the other that did not.

Not all Ebionites (whatever those are) agreed on the the [SIC] birth not being virginal, thus their disagreements are worhtless? [SIC] Using That same logic, the whole bible is worthless, as not all christians agree on it.

There's Limax burning straw men again. Did I use the word "worthless"? No. The point -- which a low-context frog like Limax can't grasp -- is that the Ebionite division means that we cannot merely assume that they were possessors of an authentic tradition. Critics simply throw, "the Ebionites didn't believe it!" in the air as though it proves anything. The division on the subject shows that it cannot simply be thrown in the air like that as a proof, because the division indicates a more complicated social model at work.

Second, the Ebionite belief in this matter is not attested until the SECOND century. Justin Martyr is the earliest to record ANY Jewish-Christian disbelief in the virgin birth [Brown.VirgRes, 49], and it is pure speculation to trace this belief all the way back to the first-century Jerusalem church.

This bit is confusing, as the author discredits anti-virginal beliefs because they went hundreds of years before being recorded. Fair enough. The bible also went hundreds of years before it was recorded, therefore "it is pure speculation to trace this belief all the way back" to any truth whatsoever.

Fair enough to throw vague generalizations in the air and not be aware, because of our own lack of education, of how the matter actually works. The critical argument links the beliefs of the Ebionites back to the Jerusalem church, even though the Ebionites were but one sect that derived from that church, and merely assumes that what this sect believed represented fully and accurately the full beliefs of the Jerusalem church, and this, contrary to what the remainder of the church clearly accepted as tradition handed down from the Apostles. It is not merely time that is at issue -- indeed that is not even the central issue -- in my reply. It could be 30 or 300 years and my argument would be the same. Limax has nothing but misdirected sound bites to offer.

The virgin birth tradition is obviously early - Matthew and Luke, because of the differences in the way they report it, are evidently drawing on a pre-gospel tradition. [Brow.BirM, 161 - see also Meie.MarJ, 221]. (It is also well-attested in the apocryphal writings [ibid., 528] which indicates its popularity.)

What does the author mean by "The virgin birth tradition is obviously early"?? Could it be that people didn't believe it the moment it supposedly occurred [SIC]? It started from Matt and Luke, as the author says, so they obviously made the whole thing up in order to make the wh*re they worshipped look even better (ooo! She was a virgin!)

What do I mean? I mean, as is plainly stated, that the tradition obviously existed well before Matthew and Luke wrote (regarded no later than 80 by even liberals; 50-60 by conservatives) so that it was obviously believed in no later than 10-30 years after Jesus' birth (giving time for the tradition to be put in writing by Matt and Luke). It did not "start" from Matt and Luke -- otherwise Limax is offering the absurd position that Matt and Luke independently came up with the idea of a VC, in spite of framing it in two very different contexts. The hayseed "make her look better" (when in fact, Mary was not "worshipped" by any stretch of the imagination, nor given any more special regard than anyone else -- and yes, I have edited Limax's crude and barbaric language) is not an answer but a makeshift Skeptical excuse that blithely explains with no knowledge of cultural, literary, and social factors that render such an explanation dismally simplistic. Such an explanation would not make Mary "look better" in context -- it would make the Christian faith, and Mary, rather, look more suspicious and more like they were trying to explain away an illegitimate birth.

And what of the heretics who denied the virgin birth, other than the Ebionites?

Hahah, Heretics? That word's just something christians give to people who's beliefs they don't like. It's just another reason for them to act like snobs.

Ha ha, indeed! That's just a reply from Skeptics who have never analyzed or compared the beliefs of the heretics, and would not care to, because they assume that all "religeous" people are equally nuts anyway. Snobs? Limax owns a set of T-shirts with the self-designation. And another set that reads, "PROVINCIALIST".

It should be kept in mind that what they objected to was not VIRGINAL conception, but CONCEPTION ITSELF! Most of these heretics held a docetic or anti-worldly stance which caused them to find the fact of conception repugnant [Brow.BirM, 528]

Nowhere in this article does it ever give (or even link to) a source or evidence that "Heretics" (apparently all who the church label as heretics are the same and have that one thing in common) objected to conception. NEVER HAPPENNED [sic]. Show me a link where a "heretic" says "Jesus was born but never conceived [sic]".

I did give a source -- Brown's Birth of the Messiah, by Raymond Brown, one of the most respected Catholic scholars ever to have written. Limax just can't be bothered repeating footnotes, much less going out himself and analyzing the works of the patristics or finding out what "docetism" was (these people also believed that Jesus did not actually undergo crucifixion, but that it was an illusion). He's too busy adding extra N's to "happened."

Limax offers a few smart remarks with no substance, then we get to:

"The virgin conception/birth idea is stolen from pagan myths." [Heine.PACT, 34] This is perhaps the most common objection of all, but that does not make it any better than the others!

That's it. No backup argument or factual support whatsoever beyond this.

Yes, there was. I provided links to my material and Glenn Miller's on copycat myth ideas, and Limax somehow manages not to quote that part. He skips right to:

Then, we point out that the alleged sources for the virgin conception/birth are NOT AT ALL the same thing!

I agree. Idiots travel in packs.

This is not an answer at all, but we include it so that the reader will know what someone of Limax's limited intellectual resources and scholarship thinks constitutes an answer.

Livy's story of Rhea Silvia, the mother of Romulus and Remus, for example, has her miraculously impregnated by the god Mars. This is a ghastly and crude notion compared to the subtle and miraculous creative power and overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

no, it's, erm, EXACTLY THE SAME. There is no difference whatsoever between Mary's "being impregnated by a god" story and Silvia's "impregnated by a god" story.

No, erm, it isn't the same AT ALL, and merely saying it is the same does not erase the vast differences, other than to the context-impaired. Mars comes down and, let us be blunt, has sexual intercourse with Rhea. Yahweh doesn't do that with Mary. His is an act of simple creative fiat, or perhaps of molecular manipulation. That isn't the same thing. NT scholars agree. History of religions scholars agree (as Limax would know if he had clicked, rather than burping over, the links given). It's not a matter, despite Limax, of "this is in the Bible so it is not crude; this is not in the Bible, so it is." That's a concrete skull assuming an argument again because he can't answer the real one, other than by this sort of linguistic equivocation:

Most of the alleged source stories similarly have some god assume a human or animal form and impregnate a human woman with some sort of divine seed.

Exactly. Mary was indeed impregnated by some human form, be it Joseph or the man next door.

What a pathetic mix-up of concepts! Now Limax is describing the "naturalist, illegitimate" option as though we were arguing for it from the text! This as much as admits that the text does not say that Mary was impregnated by some human form. Limax seems to have trouble just keeping his arguments straight, much less blowing his nose. And he hasn't a clue how to find out things, so perhaps footnotes are useless for him anyway. Check this atrocity:

(In fact, the parallels are so dubious that the au curant argument, by Jane Schaberg, is that the lack of parallels indicates that the virgin birth could not have happened!!!)

I have scoured the internet, and Jane Schaberg never said anything of the kind. Her message is that the whole "Virginal Birth" story was concocted by the church to establish a model of "the ideal woman" for their men.

You hear that? Limax scoured the Internet. That's really the place to find out what Schaberg wrote in her book, titled The Illegitimacy of Jesus, written in 1987 (see cite below). The idea Limax describes goes along with that -- she still doesn't recognize the pagan parallels as valid, and Limax isn't helping himself one bit.

We now get to where we addressed Price's material. Limax opts not to address this, saying it has "absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the Virgin Birth" (presumably meaning, nothing to do with the VC proper; it DOES have to do with the interpretive background for it in Judaism) saying he does "not care the form an opinion on whether early texts were messianic (relating to a messiah) or not" (i.e., "I don't have any intellectual resources to do the job, so will make myself by apathetic towards it.") , the gets to:

Here is an attempt to add something new to the debate: Objecting to the infancy narrative's contents, Price rhetorically complains of A man stupid enough to take his nine-months-pregnant wife on a donkey ride over unpaved hill trails. We reply that: First of all, where did the donkey come from? Price is confusing Nativity with New Testament here.

The Author is trying to focus attention on a technical mistake rather than the argument itself.

This is double obfuscation, for the "technical mistake" is an essential element in Price's argument (the jarring nature of a donkey ride), and second because I do focus on the argument in the very next point.

Second, this comment does a grave disservice to ancient people. We modern couch-potato Americans who find even a hike to the fridge and back tiring would do well to remember that in the ancient world, with very few exceptions, fitness was paramount to survival! Walking was the usual mode of transport, especially for poor families like Jesus', and there is no reason why even the "most pregnant" woman (even today, in many cases!) could not make such a trip.

Oh, he was? Where does Price mention animals, weather, and bandits? I don't see it. I do see a direct reference to labor, and by inescapable extension, fitness (the "nine-months" deal). Not that he would mention such things. Price at least is better educated than Limax and knows that ancient peoples typically traveled in large groups specifically for the purpose of safety from such dangers. Then Limax crudely suggests that "Joseph was trying to get Mary killed" precisely because he thought she had been fooling around. We'll see how he develops this theory pulled from air in a while.

Finally, we must notice that this "stupidity" was not optional! It was a Roman decree with military teeth in it, and travel with a pregnant wife is much simpler than travel with a newly-delivered wife and a suckling infant!

Limax's whole answer:

No it isn't.

Ah. Well, that sure proves it, doesn't it! I apologize; I should have known that Limax was used to traveling in the ancient world, both with a pregnant wife and/or with a suckling infant, and knew better. Ladies, which do you find easier while traveling? Carrying the child in the womb, or carrying the child, the clothes and diapers, the food and formula, the toys, attending to the physical needs of the child, feeding it, changing the...? Oh. I thought so. Give your baby to Limax for professional sitting services. As he sees it, all you have to do is let the child watch TV.

Re doubt over the integrity of Luke's account: I'm afraid this shows just how out-of-date Price continues to be! This was the province of scholars early in the 20th century, such as Taylor's proposal in 1920, referred to (and soundly refuted) by Machen [JGM.VBC, 119-168]. Brown [REB.BMh, 301] tips his hat to the idea and lists a few scholars who hold it even in his time, although - and this is rather important! - even the majority of these say that the verses were added by LUKE HIMSELF later on! At any rate, there is neither textual nor literary grounds for regarding Luke's virgin birth material as an interpolation.

This entire Argument is based on the assumption that Luke was right. What I'd like to know is how he knew so surely that Mary was a virgin so many years after the "virgin birth" supposedly took place?

The "entire Argument" is based on no such thing -- Limax just can't get the concrete out of his ears. This is purely a textual issue, not a historical issue. Obviously Limax hasn't the resources to answer the point, so he changes the subject.

Re Schaberg: I was not able to acquire Schaberg's work in time for the first edition of this essay, but have acquired it since then. Previously, I only offered these descriptions applied to Schaberg's work by Meier [JM.MJ, 246]: ...self-conflicted from the start...a strange position...with a tour de force of exegetical expertise...a long catena of dubious interpretations...Repeated affirmation of a theory takes the place of detailed arguments, rhetorical questions abound, and counterindicating data are ignored or passed over quickly in footnotes...a great deal of learning is wasted on a quixotic project.

As it turns out, Meier is not being the least bit harsh here. Schaberg's work is full of peculiar arguments - among them, that the LACK of parallels to the virgin birth story in pagan religions makes it less likely to have been true! [JS.IJ, 66] For years skeptics have been citing pagan "parallels" that they say were sources for the virgin birth story in order to discredit it - and now we have the opposite argument being used!

...no we don't! Even when taken out of context with the "..."s the Author of this essay likes to use when quoting, Schaberg doesn't make any of the illogical arguments the Author wishes to portray her as making...

Schaberg DOES make this argument (whatever it's merits), and Limax doesn't show us how he got a copy of her book and proved that she didn't or that we quoted anything out of context (either from Meier of Schaberg -- Limax seems to have the two mixed up!). All he did was "scour the Internet" for gossip.

Limax refuses and answer on Papias: "Doesn't matter, it's all a load of tripe anyways." I am thereafter accused of digressing to "focus attention away from the subject matter" (i.e., Limax determined beforehand what I was allowed to address to be relevant; by that mark Price also was trying to focus attention somewhere else by bringing the matters up) and then:

...knowing that adoptionism was rife in the early church (Acts 2:36; 13:33; Romans 1:3-4), itself a fact that completely ruins McDowell's fallacious claim that everyone in the early days believed, or even knew of, the virgin birth, it makes sense that Mark should begin with the baptism of Jesus, with Jesus being informed by the heavenly voice that he is God's son. I hardly think that FOUR verses amounts to ANYTHING being "rife" in the early church!

This coming from the Author who's willing to say a single line of verse - John 1:12 - proves virginity. I guess when it proves the author's beliefs, anything (even a single line) amounts to anything, but if it goes against his views nothing (not even four verses) count to anything.

Aye, this was an intellectual horse who incorrectly reported both my cite (John 1:12-13, not just 1:12) and misrepresented my position (I said nothing about it "proving" anything and even said it was best left out of the discussion because of ambiguity). I guess if you don't have the mental cajones to grasp the actual arguments, any straw man will do for burning.

Limax characterized some of Price's next words as "blah blah blah" (Price, who despite his peculiarities is still a trained NT scholar, would be gratified by the description) and merely declares the matters discussed irrelevant to the essay (um, that's only if we assume the essay is about one aspect of a given topic -- talk about shifting the goalposts!). What Limax personally cares about in his limited view is not the determinant for what we write about in articles. After a bit more gratuitous sexual language from Limax which does not constitute an answer, we get to:

Price: Notice that it simply does not occur to the apologists that things might be the other way around: that Jesus might actually have been a bastard and that the virgin conception tale was circulated as a theological euphemism, just as Livy tells us that the claim of Rhea Silvia (mother of Romulus and Remus) to have been miraculously impregnated by the god Mars might well have been a desperate stratagem to avoid being executed for violating her vows of sacerdotal celibacy. Why not take the virgin birth story as evidence of Jesus' illegitimacy?

Why not? Well, if our preconceived notions are in that direction, that is how it MUST be explained.

Limax cuts me off at every sentence at this point, but his answer is no more than "I have never experienced a miracle or an act of God. Therefore, there definitely wasn't one here." In short, a preconceived notion and nothing more. No actual specific contrary evidence. He's good at generalization and the fallacy of arguing by vague, bigoted, presumptive association:

The stories in the bible were myth, legends, passed down through the ages by oral tradition where the stories were twisted, distorted, and enhanced by each successive generation so suit their ideas.

If this is a worthwhile argument, so is this: The stories in the Bible were historical narrative, passed down through the ages by reliable oral tradition. Now let's see if Limax has the guts to be more specific. We'll chop him down on any area of our specialty.

On it goes. I asked Price for evidence that it was a cover-up or a euphemism. Limax responds with no evidence at all; all he offers is the same begged questions: "People lie when they're in trouble." That assumes that Mary was "in trouble" to begin with, and there is no evidence of that at all. "The story is utterly ridiculous." That's bland question begging, the same preconceoved notion. It is not evidence. "If there were a god, he cerrtainly could have done a h*ll of a much better job at sending a messiah to earth." Oh, really! So Limax has a Harry Turtledove machine and knows every possible way of sending a messiah to earth, and knows another way would have been better. That's no argument, that's a gutted fish slapped on the counter for sympathy. "People believed it, and some idiots still do." Still a begged question, assuming idiocy to argue for idiocy. Will earn symapthy points from Limax's gullible friends, and little else. And this shows just how low on the evolutionary rung Limax is:

Price here has tried to argue from the possibility of something to its probability, and then to its actuality!

Big words, no point.

Gah!!! No point Limax can discern with his limited resources, that's certain! That's why he persists in this delusion that we claim to be providing positive evidence for the VC. Limax sums up his inabilities in his conclusion:

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever so believe that the birth of Hesus was virginal. Religeous nuts will adamantly stand by the view that it was, but when asked of reason for their beliefs, can only point out The Holy Bible as their source. It is commonly known that The Holy Bible is filled to the brim with self-contradictions, impossibilites, myths and ignorance, which discounts The Holy Bible as any source whatsoever to be trusted as factual.

It is commonly known that Skeptics make this charge and can do nothing but dribble when countered with historical, linguistic, and social data than nails them to the wall, and that they can only resort to the "no miracles, because there are no miracles" routine which does not constitute evidence. Nice try, Limax, for a tame ape. Now let's see you take on some more of our material. If you can get past this one.