Nick Peters just started a new web site on the subject. It features collections of material supporting the virgin birth in written, audio, and video form. If you have any ideas about other material to include, he's taking suggestions.
The Historicity of the Virgin Birth by Dr. Robert Bowman https://ses.edu/podcast/?sapurl=LytkYTEyL25jY2EtYXJjaGl2ZXMvbWkvK2Y3bXo2NjM/YnJhbmRpbmc9dHJ1ZSZlbWJlZD10cnVl
I have followed Triablogue for long time. Definitely Jason affirms virgin birth. That is evident in many of his blog posts. Click on label "Virgin Birth" in this blog post to see past blog posts from Jason and other Triblogue. No need to doubt a faithful Christian apologist who has written many articles on topic over many years. Minimum, give faithful Christian apologist, Jason, the benefit of doubt about virgin birth. Absence of evidence (about affirmation of virgin birth) is not always evidence of absence.
Not a spammer. It's just the whole point behind stating that I affirm the virgin birth, which I do affirm, and how everything got started. I have included a link below to the story of why I always talk about the need to state that someone affirms the virgin birth, which I do affirm and Jason could tell you I have done the same thing in our personal chats.
Thank you, Cory, and yes. There is humor. If it looks absurd, well that's the point. Atheist arguments in many cases need to be shown how absurd they are. (Not all. Some arguments are serious and need serious answers.) I hope the material I have on the virgin birth, which I do affirm, will be a good resource for you.
I was not sure if you refer to me or Nick but thank you for clarification! I am sorry for misunderstanding you.
Nick's "humor" started as reply to one sceptic. The sceptic said that if St Paul believed in virgin birth, then St Paul would affirm it, but because St Paul never affirm virgin birth, therefore St Paul does not believe in virgin birth. It is a bad argument. But now, if anyone mentions "virgin birth," Nick replies "which I affirm." Nick wants to ensure he is always "affirming" the virgin birth so no sceptic can tell Nick that he does not believe in virgin birth because he never affirm it. Nick is humourosly mocking the sceptic, too. Nick wants to share this "inside" joke with others, until more people are "in" on joke, too. There is even Facebook page dedicated to this joke.
This joke is good against this sceptic and this kind of bad argument. This joke is funny first few times. But it quickly becomes old. This is just my opinion. I know some people never tire of same joke. They like hearing same joke over and over again. They can hear same joke thousand times and always laugh. Some people always laugh at Harold and Kumar humour and never tire of Harold and Kumar humour. That is why these movies make a lot of money. But me, I can enjoy occasionally one kind of humour, but I like more variety in my humour.
Not necessarily. When the dialogue where this first came up occurred, it was humor to make a point. Paul's silence on the virgin birth, which I do affirm, was taken to mean that he didn't believe in the virgin birth, which I do affirm, then the fact that most preachers don't mention the virgin birth, which I do affirm, in every sermon means that they don't affirm the virgin birth, which I do affirm.
Now I am doing in-depth research on the virgin birth, which I do affirm, for an ebook on the topic of defending the virgin birth, which I do affirm, followed by an ebook dealing with mythicism affirming the life of Jesus, and then defending the reality of the crucifixion, then the burial, then the resurrection, then orthodox Preterism defending the current rule of Jesus.
If you will check the site that Jason has shared, you will find several excellent resources defending the virgin birth, which I do affirm, including free ebooks you can download and other articles and audio tools you can use in defending the virgin birth, which I do affirm.
I am sorry but your repeating "the virgin birth, which I do affirm" over and over again is not "humor" anymore, or it is "humor" ad nauseam. It is like bizarre friend who keep joking and don't know when to stop.
But it is best to roll my eyes and move on. I am glad you have done some good work on virgin birth. That is important. I hope many read your site that Jason recommended for your work on virgin birth.
It's sort of like "peace be upon him" when Muslims refer to Muhammed. To crank up the satire and lesson the keystrokes Nick should shorten it to "w.i.a" as is often done with d.v. (Deo Volente).
Thank you Jason, though I am concerned since nowhere in the post did you state that you affirm the virgin birth, which I do affirm.
ReplyDeleteThe Historicity of the Virgin Birth by Dr. Robert Bowman
Deletehttps://ses.edu/podcast/?sapurl=LytkYTEyL25jY2EtYXJjaGl2ZXMvbWkvK2Y3bXo2NjM/YnJhbmRpbmc9dHJ1ZSZlbWJlZD10cnVl
Adding now, and I hope that you affirm the virgin birth, which I do affirm.
DeleteNick,
DeleteI have followed Triablogue for long time. Definitely Jason affirms virgin birth. That is evident in many of his blog posts. Click on label "Virgin Birth" in this blog post to see past blog posts from Jason and other Triblogue. No need to doubt a faithful Christian apologist who has written many articles on topic over many years. Minimum, give faithful Christian apologist, Jason, the benefit of doubt about virgin birth. Absence of evidence (about affirmation of virgin birth) is not always evidence of absence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCory,
DeleteIf you refer to me, I am not a spammer. But English is not my first language.
Not a spammer. It's just the whole point behind stating that I affirm the virgin birth, which I do affirm, and how everything got started. I have included a link below to the story of why I always talk about the need to state that someone affirms the virgin birth, which I do affirm and Jason could tell you I have done the same thing in our personal chats.
DeleteI get it now, thanks. Touché :-D
DeleteHi Gerald, do excuse me. It was directed to Nick. I now understand it was tongue and cheek and that there's a humorous context to this.
DeleteThank you, Cory, and yes. There is humor. If it looks absurd, well that's the point. Atheist arguments in many cases need to be shown how absurd they are. (Not all. Some arguments are serious and need serious answers.) I hope the material I have on the virgin birth, which I do affirm, will be a good resource for you.
DeleteHi Cory,
DeleteI was not sure if you refer to me or Nick but thank you for clarification! I am sorry for misunderstanding you.
Nick's "humor" started as reply to one sceptic. The sceptic said that if St Paul believed in virgin birth, then St Paul would affirm it, but because St Paul never affirm virgin birth, therefore St Paul does not believe in virgin birth. It is a bad argument. But now, if anyone mentions "virgin birth," Nick replies "which I affirm." Nick wants to ensure he is always "affirming" the virgin birth so no sceptic can tell Nick that he does not believe in virgin birth because he never affirm it. Nick is humourosly mocking the sceptic, too. Nick wants to share this "inside" joke with others, until more people are "in" on joke, too. There is even Facebook page dedicated to this joke.
This joke is good against this sceptic and this kind of bad argument. This joke is funny first few times. But it quickly becomes old. This is just my opinion. I know some people never tire of same joke. They like hearing same joke over and over again. They can hear same joke thousand times and always laugh. Some people always laugh at Harold and Kumar humour and never tire of Harold and Kumar humour. That is why these movies make a lot of money. But me, I can enjoy occasionally one kind of humour, but I like more variety in my humour.
Gerald. That's kind of the point with the name on the website about why I affirm the virgin birth, which I do affirm.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2016/07/27/i-affirm-virgin-birth/
Nick,
DeleteThank you, I understand now. Your website that Jason linked is supposed to be "humor" as you said and your reply to Jason was "humor," too.
Not necessarily. When the dialogue where this first came up occurred, it was humor to make a point. Paul's silence on the virgin birth, which I do affirm, was taken to mean that he didn't believe in the virgin birth, which I do affirm, then the fact that most preachers don't mention the virgin birth, which I do affirm, in every sermon means that they don't affirm the virgin birth, which I do affirm.
DeleteNow I am doing in-depth research on the virgin birth, which I do affirm, for an ebook on the topic of defending the virgin birth, which I do affirm, followed by an ebook dealing with mythicism affirming the life of Jesus, and then defending the reality of the crucifixion, then the burial, then the resurrection, then orthodox Preterism defending the current rule of Jesus.
If you will check the site that Jason has shared, you will find several excellent resources defending the virgin birth, which I do affirm, including free ebooks you can download and other articles and audio tools you can use in defending the virgin birth, which I do affirm.
Nick,
DeleteI am sorry but your repeating "the virgin birth, which I do affirm" over and over again is not "humor" anymore, or it is "humor" ad nauseam. It is like bizarre friend who keep joking and don't know when to stop.
But it is best to roll my eyes and move on. I am glad you have done some good work on virgin birth. That is important. I hope many read your site that Jason recommended for your work on virgin birth.
It's sort of like "peace be upon him" when Muslims refer to Muhammed. To crank up the satire and lesson the keystrokes Nick should shorten it to "w.i.a" as is often done with d.v. (Deo Volente).
DeletePeace be upon him.
That is true that shortening would be improvement! :)
DeleteMaybe Nick can use Latin or Greek or Harry Potter phrase to be more humorous, ad firmware, credo, etc.
Delete