Is the virgin birth of Jesus a myth?

Christmas. It is the season to rejoice in the birth of Jesus, the Son of God in song, praise and fellowship. It is a time when some examine what they profess to be in terms of the faith. They examine their conviction to see if it is firm. They examine the testimony of their words with their deeds. In some instances some people come to terms with themselves. They realize there is a need for them to step up in order to be ready to give an account for themselves as Christians or as disciples of Jesus.

Christmas is also the season for some to mock the virgin birth of Jesus as being nothing more than a myth. One writer admonishes believers to forsake the virgin birth with these words: “Virgin birth: it’s pagan, guys. Get over it”. Do not make the mistake to assume that he rejects, at least not that it is apparent in his article, that which is pagan over that which is holy or divine. However, it is what has prompted me to write this article.

the subtlety of a mother

I feel a certain sense of futility about writing this article. Certainly, there is no ‘deep anxiety’ (Carrier). It is not pessimism, doubt or unbelief. Rather, it is because it pertains to something which every human being, simply by virtue of being alive, has experienced, namely, their birth. We say it’s a done deal. Truly, we’ve been there and although it is not an event that we remember we say we've done that. (Our mothers would probably have a something to say anyone of three different ways: YOU'VE done that? You've DONE that? You've done THAT? Mothers have a subtle but very effective way of putting in our place as in, You did nothing.)

Read More

First Believe?

I must admit it is refreshing to hear an atheist who presents his argument, or objection as in this case, without the usual excess peppering of his message (I encourage you to view the video: First Believe?) with claims and appeals for logic and reason or mockery and derision. Too often the mere inclusion of these lofty puffs about logic and reason in one’s speech are taken as proof that one’s argument is on solid logic and reason simply because the individual says it, and therefore it is so. This is not limited to atheists. Christians tout and flaunt the same claims with each other as well as with atheists. This is not to dismiss logic and reason. (It amuses me to hear Christians toss around what was once solely the atheist ploy and brand about a strawman. And you thought scarecrows weren’t real, right?)

I agree with Matt about the proposition that I will describe and what amounts to, for working purposes, not as a bait and switch, but as a switch and bait.The switch in this instance is to call on the the atheist to shift from unbelief to belief with nothing more than to have the atheist declare that they believe. Effectively, this conveniently frees the Christian from the work of engaging in thought and discussion with the atheist to bring him or her, not necessarily to that Platinum Award of belief which is rightly the Christian’s objective, but to an understanding. Acceptance of that understanding will not necessarily follow and it may or may not come during or after the discussion if ever. Quite simply the risk of acceptance may be deemed as being too much and too high for the individual and he will reject whatever and all proofs or even a thought to ponder among the evidence.

Essentially, first believe is an outfront appeal, or insistence, for the unbeliever to believe and that once they believe they will see, that is, understand the unseen matters of faith in God. I can understand the atheists’ whuh? bewilderment to such a proposition. It does constitute an incredible problem. However, it is not as though atheists do not have a similar proposition of their own. Of course, the proverbial two-wrongs-don’t-make-a-right comes to mind, but the similar proposition from the atheist is “show me and I’ll believe” or as I believe they say in Missouri, “show me.” (No, I am not from Missouri.)

"I come from a state that raises corn and cotton, cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I'm from Missouri, and you have got to show me." (Congressman Willard Vandiver in 1899)

This call for proof or evidence by atheists is certainly within the realm of what is reasonable and plausible. However, this is not to say that confirmation through sight and touch necessarily trumps or invalidates all other responses to the question of proof. Scientists work with phenomenon which is neither visible nor palpable, but that phenomenon are not for that reason rendered as invalidate or not true. Even so, the acid test for the scientific hypothesis, the theory, of the scientific method of investigation rightly states that an idea or explanation must be testable. A theory is a valid argument and not necessarily a wild guess or wild notion, so there’s no need for an ecstatic jump to conclusions that I have rejected a basic understanding about theory as it is used by scientists. The corollary affirmation to scientific hypothesis is truth. What does that mean? It means that despite our tendency for favorite preferred word choices such as belief versus understanding truth is inescapable. The much heard academic and coffee table popurri about truth as being objective, subjective, emotional, real, biblical truth, philosophical, experiential and the grandest of them all, drum roll, please: truth is absolute, are all like so much turkey stuffing with truth being the turkey.

Jesus demonstrated and defined truth by declaring that he knew 1) where he came from, 2) why he was here, and 3) where he was going. Truth is not so much objective, subjective or absolute as much as it is a perspective on past, present and future, perspective being the relationship of parts, time in this case, to one another. Truth is the knowledge and peace with one’s past, present and future which makes one free because he or she has come to terms and reconciled these things in their heart and mind. [5] Any bias between our past, present or future which cannot be explained will be exposed. Sometimes the quick assumption is to yell liar and hypocrite as opposed to maybe offering words that might guide that person towards a more complete reconciliation of truth. Matt’s definition that “belief is the state of accepting a proposition is true” is no less true than to say understanding is the state of accepting a proposition is true, that is, that it is truth. Here is an instance in which the proposition was not stated, but it is implied and also subsequently rejected.

When God counseled Cain about Cain’s anger and fallen countenance it was all for nothing. It was the first counseling session. The counseling was a failure. Cain went on to murder his brother. After he had murdered his brother Abel he disdainfully scorned God for asking him where was his brother. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Cain said. The implicit answer to God’s question before Cain fired his retort was that, yes, Cain, you are your brother’s keeper. The proposition about being the keeper of one’s brother was rejected by Cain. Effectively, Cain, who spoke and interacted with God, chose to not believe God. Instead, he chose to succumb to the carnal desires of his heart as in the particular instance of murdering his brother. The point being in this very early passage of scripture is that seeing and knowing God, such as did Cain, is neither a guarantee of obedience nor of belief in God.

the universe and the air we breathe

Here are two examples which have been accepted as verified and verifiable through the scientific method. The first is simple, near and present to every human being. It is air, that element which fills our lungs and sustains our life. Air is neither visible nor palpable by human beings. Yes, its effects become visible and palpable when pressure, such as in a storm, is applied to air. The second is the universe. Scientists understood, as recently as between 45 and 60 years ago, that the universe was infinite, that is, that it had always existed. They call this the steady-state theory. This earlier theory was chipped away and eventually, in a manner of speaking, banged out of existence through the work of Georges Lemaître, George Gamow, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson and many others. Clearly, to reproduce the beginning of the universe is not something which one can conduct in the laboratory. Yet, the theory concerning the beginning of the universe is not for this reason invalid or false and no less real than the air we breathe. While I could state, without any basis of support, that I understand the hypothesis concerning the origin of the universe is falsifiable or a falsifiable prediction, I will admit my own inadequacy and incompetence to do so. It is out of my pay grade.

the falsifiable predictability of the resurrection of Jesus

What I can say is that when the scientific hypothesis is applied to the resurrection of Jesus to test it the result is that it is a falsifiable prediction. This does not mean it renders it false or that it nullifies it. Even so, I expect some of my fellow brothers and sisters in the faith might have already jumped to a mistaken conclusion about my statement. It simply means that there is a plausible, alternate explanation and it is good for atheists to examine the alternate explanation and determine for themselves if these things are plausible and believable. Some may be tempted and resort to make a quick dismissal of the resurrection as wishful fairytale.

There is a bit of a similarity between the discussion concerning the universe and the resurrection. They both have to do with origins and  beginnings. If these were to be disproved than so be it. If all the tenets of faith in Jesus were inverted and placed as an upside down pyramid the resurrection would be at the sharp, pointy end of that pyramid. Even though I will state that it is superfluous to chase after every rabbit, that is, every little and big thing which the reader does not understand or rejects from the scripture, it is all for nothing if the claims and historicity of the reality of the resurrection remain unexamined. If the resurrection is indeed false, then the rest is of little significance or consequence and a wide and wild open-ended anything-goes free for all. Kind of a little like a wild (BIG) tusked bull elephant in a fine, pristine, glassware shop on a must.

The resurrection, unlike the origin of the universe, is much closer to us human beings. The reality of death keeps it close and real for us and does allow us to cast it into a hypothetical, far away, distant, parallel universe. Death is an everyday occurrence. It speaks to and of our human nature and desire to live. It is precisely why death is not the sole domain of scientists and philosophers and the reason why this is within anyone’s pay grade. There are several ideas which could be proposed to discredit the resurrection of Jesus. It is likely that none of these ideas are new. Some of these are mentioned in the scriptures and we will examine a couple of these now. No one reading these words has experienced death. Let me be more specific. No one has experienced physical death _ permanently, not a near-death experience from which the person returns to life with a testimony of his experience.

transformation of energy

Scientific knowledge has taught us that the energy which makes up solid matter, such as a rock, cannot be annihilated. It can only be transformed. Then, although it may no longer be visible or palpable to the senses it remains, theoretically, able to be combined or constituted back to its solid form. Although this may not have been done with a rock this is demonstrable and evident in the albeit less solid element of water. The solid form of water can be pressured until it transforms into vapor. Then, once the pressure is relieved the vapor is restored to its solid water form.

The standard response of the atheist to death is that it is final. Here are the death, burial and resurrection accounts as they appear in the four gospel accounts by Matthew,[1] Mark,[2] Luke [3] and John.[4] The occurrence of death for a person, according to the atheist, is as though he or she had never existed. How plausible and credible is this response to death? How is it that a lifeless form of solid matter such as a rock cannot be annihilated, but a human life form with all its information and intelligence ceases to exist as though it had never existed? Furthermore, that this lifeform cannot, like a rock, be restored to its original state or to life?

These are the claims which Jesus made, namely, that he would lay down his life and take it up from the dead, again. This was the restoration of life to a dead body and what had, according to atheists, ceased to exist as though it had never existed. Yes, I understand this can all be dismissed and discarded by the atheist, likely with heavy doses of mockery and ridicule, but this response hardly makes the response of atheists true. It is more profitable to examine the falsifiability of the resurrection.

The claim of the New Testament scriptures is that Jesus died, was buried and rose up from the dead on the third day. This is what Jesus had openly stated numerous times to friend and foe alike. It was not a private club secret among his disciples. This is the hypothesis for us to examine as to whether it is falsifiable. Here are just a couple.

Jesus did not die, but the disciples lied

The truth is that his public crucifixion was a glorious occasion for his adversaries. They were present at the crucifixion and cast their mockery, derision and contempt on him. Some of his disciples were also present at the crucifixion. Nobody denied his death. After his burial some women came to the tomb with intentions of completing the tradition preparations on the deceased. This preparation for burial had not been possible in the case of Jesus because of the approaching Sabbath. Among the witnesses who were present were the duty-bound Roman soldiers who had no vested interest in the entire matter and were simply doing their job as soldiers assigned to carry out the execution of death by crucifixion. They reported to Governor Pilate that Jesus was dead.

Jesus died, but he did not rise from the dead

The thought of the disciples mustering some farce and charade of joy over their dead leader is pathetic. The easy “show-me” proof is precisely what Thomas insisted in order for him to believe. Thomas was one of the disciples of Jesus who was absent the first time he appeared to the disciples. Jesus appeared to as many as five hundred at one time. The visual, verifiable proof that Thomas demanded was to see with his own eyes the holes in the hands of Jesus and to place his finger in those holes and the hole in his side in order for Thomas to believe. (Thomas, like all but one of the eleven disciples [minus Judas who had hanged himself] was not present at the crucifixion. Yet Thomas knew and was familiar with the account by those witnesses who were present that a Roman soldier had thrust his spear into Jesus’ side from which flowed blood and water.) Just as Roman soldiers had presided at the crucifixion they were also present to guard the tomb as requested of Pilate by the adversaries of Jesus.

The idea of whether Jesus did not die, but his disciples lied together with the idea that Jesus died, but he did not rise from the dead are falsifiable predictions. However, the testimony of the scriptures from believers and unbelievers alike plus human reason, and yes, logic and reason, indicate and strongly counter any dismissal of the resurrection as being a falsehood perpetrated on man and perpetuated by man for bad reasons or dishonest and insincere motives. The resurrection of Jesus, like anything else, is a falsifiable prediction, but given the above it is not falsified. There are those who have professed and proclaimed the resurrection from the first to the twenty first century even unto death. Their decision and commitment to do so came about when they were convinced that what they had heard, examined and assessed warranted a response to accept the risks. Furthermore, those deaths which occurred even while professing and proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus were not of unbelievers in the hands of believers, but by believers in the hands of unbelievers.

conclusion

The disciples did profess to believe in Jesus while he was alive and they walked and talked with him. Yet despite the fact that they had heard from him that he would rise up from the dead they wondered what that meant and could hardly grasp much less believe it. Some people, Christians perhaps, would likely admonish the disciples for their unbelief while unbelievers would likely point to this as hypocrisy. However, both of these responses may reflect a similar bias against which Matt admonishes his viewers.

I consider that their unbelief in response to the risen Jesus was as intended by Jesus. It was akin to removing the floaties on the beginner swimmer; let’s see if you have learned to float and swim. It is akin to removing the training wheels on the child’s bicycle. In the case of the disciples even when they saw Jesus with their own eyes Luke attests in his gospel account that they could not believe it because of their joy and amazement.[6] The disciples found themselves stripped, in a manner of speaking, of their floaties and training wheels and all their biases concerning how and what they thought they knew about Jesus. It was imperative that they now demonstrate to and for themselves the conviction of things which they had heard and of which they were now coming to be fully convinced.

The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus can be no more reproduced than the beginning of the universe. Neither of these phenomenon are for this reason false. In the same manner as we ponder the cosmos of the universe and make a determination so, too, the resurrection of Jesus calls for nothing more and nothing less. The disciples and unbelievers in the first century faced the same reality of death as what we face in the twenty first century.

Any attempt to dismiss the resurrection of Jesus because no one in the twenty first century has seen him is akin to dismissing the scientific hypothesis. It is to deny the theoretical possibility of pulverizing the lifeless, solid mass of energy of a rock in oblivion or water into invisible vapor and then each, theoretically, bringing both back to their original solid state. This is a reality. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe (first) it. It has to do with whether it aligns with basic natural science and basic human psychology. This is nothing deep, mystical, mysterious or profound. If it staggers the imagination so, too, do the wonders and vastness of the universe. Mockery and derision are not do they equate with comprehension or a cohesive understanding. Death is not something to be feared and it is definitely not something feared by Christians. This is not to say that there are not people who do live in fear of death, but their fear (or even that of some Christians) does not amount to an invalidation of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Read More

Is the Resurrection of Jesus a Falsifiable Prediction?

Atheists, naturalists, scientists, humanists and evolutionists like to tout this claim about the so-called scientific theory: it can be repeatedly tested and, hence, verified. Scientific theory can, just as well, reveal falsifiable predictions. I understand the scientists’ use of the term. It is not the same as in the popular sense which views theory as something which is unsubstantiated and speculative. So, we do not need to chase down that rabbit hole. I do not take issue with this use of the term. I accept the use of the term and will abide by it in this article. Let’s keep in mind that the repeated testing of a theory does not equate to or require a replication of whatever is being tested in order for it to be verifiable or falsifiable. Also, I do not take issue with the claim that an aspect of the natural world can be repeatedly tested. Yes, all things ought to be subjected to testing.

---

Certainly, verification through rigorous testing such as ISO in the business and manufacturing sectors is highly valued. However, it does beg the question, how is that an accomplishment? How does that build knowledge? Yes, it is an important process for verification of processes, but the criteria for pass/fail in ISO is not set by outside sources, but by the very same client companies who are subject to the ISO audit. It is that client’s process operation which is audited  for adherence. Advocates of scientific theory tout it as far more than a method of investigation. The work of scientific theory is akin to repeatedly testing a battery charge which will go from a positive charge to a negative charge eventually; a process of degradation on which the tester causes no significant effect. It is in this respect that the ISO audit and the scientific theory do not yield, produce or build any knowledge. They merely direct the interested parties to what they need to observe. It is akin to an educational system which touts that its students passed a test. But have those students learned anything substantive beyond the facts which were necessary for them to learn in order to pass the test? My purpose is not to criticize scientific theory, although it is not above criticism and scrutiny. My purpose is to apply the scrutiny of a falsifiable prediction of scientific theory to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

What can scientific theory reveal about death?

Atheists, naturalists, scientists, humanists and evolutionists expend much time and energy theorizing and testing. Generally, those areas of theorizing and testing involve either the vastly remote and infinitely distant in terms of billions of light years, the vastly long ago such as the beginning of the universe billions of years ago or the microscopically minute of molecular biology. Certainly, these areas of focus are important areas for study, but they are not exactly foremost in the daily lives of people. So, here is something which is foremost and does affect all human beings regardless of whether they are atheists, theists, naturalists, scientists, humanists and evolutionists: it is death.

How does one test death to determine whether it leads to, according to nihilism, the annihilation of a meaningless human being at the time of death? Fundamental scientific theory tells us that there is nothing, for example a rock, which can be annihilated. It may cease to be visible and palpable, but it is not annihilated. The static energy of the rock is merely transformed into the dynamic energy of disassociated subatomic particles. This can be repeatedly tested with other things such as water. Theoretically, the subatomic makeup of the rock remains in the universe and can be recomposed and restored in the form of a rock, again. What the application of the method of scientific theory reveals about death is that death is the catalyst by which life, as stored energy in a human body suit, is transformed, and like the dynamic disassociated subatomic particles of the energy of a rock; life is capable of being recomposed and restored.  Life is no less capable than a rock of being transformed. This is the easy part.

The interesting point about this much touted bit of scientific information concerning the transformation from the state of static, solid matter of a rock into dynamic energy is that it is not applied to human beings when they die. This raises a couple of questions:

1   How is it that an inanimate, lifeless object with its vast subatomic information such as a rock can not be made to cease to exist but can merely be transformed into dynamic energy?

2   Yet, a human being with a vastly complex chemical and atomic makeup and a wealth of knowledge information of itself and its environment ceases to exist as though, according to the conclusions of atheists, naturalists, scientists, humanists and evolutionists, it never existed in this world?

The meaninglessness of nihilism neither reflects nor reveals the work of scientific theory nor the result of repeated testing to determine whether death is a falsifiable prediction. Nihilism saddles itself with merely declaring life is meaningless, but it cannot begin to address much less anser the falsifiability of death. This is the hard challenge. The query continues.

Is the resurrection of Jesus a falsifiable prediction?

I expect that the question about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead would likely summon all manner of cynicism and mockery. Cynicism and mockery are like the meaninglessness of nihilism in that none of these capable, not that it would matter to the cynic and company, of articulating an alternative. This is not a surprise. However, do not be deceived or dazzled so as to mistake cynicism and mockery with the diligent work of scientific theory and the process of repeated testing to determine whether death or the resurrection are falsifiable predictions.

If the subatomic elements which make up a rock can theoretically and predictably come together again to form a rock, then why should a similar predictability be any less true of a human being when, just like another object or life in the universe, it dies. Scientists know and deal in the realm of events, such as the beginning of the universe. It is an event which cannot be replicated in the lab. The theories concerning the beginning of the universe may or may not be true. The scientist can only work within the realm of theory and with theory as a research tool. He does not need to replicate the beginning of the universe in the lab in order to conclude whether it is or is not falsifiable. The conclusion, or the results of testing of a theory, lead him to declare that repeated testing of theories concerning the beginning of the universe reveal that those tests do not and likely will not lead to a falsifiable prediction concerning the beginning of the universe. This is the understandable work of scientific theory. (Here is a brief and interesting article concerning the big bang theory and the beginning of the universe. See A. Penzias and R. Wilson on their discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background [CMB].)

Theory is the same resource available for the scientist to frame and explain his examination concerning the resurrection event of Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus, not unlike the beginning of the universe, does not need to be replicated by the scientist to determine whether or not the resurrection is a falsifiable prediction.

Jesus stated publicly to friend and foe alike that he would die and be buried and that he would rise again from the dead. He stated that he would rise up from the dead on the third day following his death by crucifixion. Essentially, Jesus revealed that he knew and had the code, that is, the scientific information, the authority, to take up his life from the grip of death and to rise up again. There have been others, as is often noted derisively, before and after Jesus who made similar claims. However, the question here is where are those who made those claims? They pass from this life along with their claims about their own death, burial and resurrection are like the rock when it is obliterated. They were cast from this life into death without ever substantiating or fulfilling their claims. There was no transformation, no restored life to their dead bodies.

The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is what reveals that death is a falsifiable prediction.

What Jesus demonstrated is that death has no power, hence, it is a falsifiable prediction.

Jesus revealed that the resurrection from the dead is not a falsifiable prediction.

The resurrection of Jesus is a falsifiable prediction because his disciples could have stolen his lifeless body and lied about him being being raised from the dead. Death is not an event which occurs on a microscopic level or in a place light years away from earth. It is daily, common occurrence for humans.

The resurrection of Jesus from the dead revealed that death had no power over him. If he did not rise from the dead there would be no disciples to proclaim his resurrection even under threat of death and later unto laying down their lives for what they could not deny.

Hence, the resurrection of Jesus is not falsified.

This is not to say that death does not occur. Death does occur. However, the point of the scriptures is precisely that it counters the mocking notion of atheists, naturalists, scientists, humanists and evolutionists that the grave of death is the ultimate end and existence of a human being as though he or she had never existed. This is the falsifiable prediction of death. There is no denying and it is true, not false, that Jesus died by crucifixion.

The resurrection of Jesus complements scientific theory

The fact is that what Jesus claimed and fulfilled concerning his death, burial and resurrection exactly complements scientific theory and scientific knowledge concerning matter and energy and that these are merely transformed. Jesus himself emerged from death with a transformed body which his disciples were able to see and touch. Hence, his claims and the fulfillment of those claims is not a falsifiable prediction. Those claims and the fulfillment of those claims mirror the same scientific theory concerning the transformation and theoretical restoration of matter and energy. The claims and fulfillment of those claims by Jesus concerning himself is not a vastly remote, distant or obscure reality. It is a as close and real for every human being as it was for Jesus.

conclusion

The claims and the fulfillment of those claims are to Jesus what scientific theory and falsifiable predictions are to scientists. Just as scientists point out that theory is not an unsubstantiated speculation so to the claims of Jesus are not unsubstantiated speculation. The fulfillment of those claims can bear and stand up to the scrutiny of scientific theory and its repeated testing and its conclusions concerning the transformation of matter and energy. Certainly, from a human perspective those claims and theories are usually presented by their respective adherents as two totally separate and never-to-be-associated responses to life and to death. But, for better or worse, they concern all human beings. When the claims of Jesus concerning his death, burial and resurrection in the first century were realized there was no denial of those facts. However, this does not mean that even those in the first century who experienced it and knew about the resurrection necessarily accepted the reality and the implications of the resurrection of Jesus for themselves much less mankind. The same reality and implications, even if not repeatable, are not falsifiable. It is the burden on the backs of atheists, naturalists, scientists, humanists and evolutionists.

This is no different than running a test repeatedly in the twenty first century. The test results will speak for themselves. The tester is free to accept or reject the results of those tests. He could even forge or force the test results, but this is not necessary. He has the free will to accept or deny, like those first century witnesses, what the test results reveal for him. Even the skeptical scientist knows that according to scientific theory an event, such as the beginning of the universe need not necessarily be replicated to be verifiable, true and not a falsifiable prediction. Similarly, the resurrection of Jesus need not necessarily be replicated in order to be true and verifiable and true and not a falsifiable prediction.

Read More