The Virgin Birth: Myth or Fact? Michael Horton Responds to Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins

[@solamediaorg]

Become a Sola Partner and we'll send you a complimentary copy of Michael Horton's book, Ordinary: Sustainable Faith in a Radical, Restless World → solamedia.org/partner

[@EatHoneyBeeHappy]

When you say, "they are talking in incommensurable language games", what you mean is "Peterson is playing incommensurable language games", while Dawkins is asking reasonable down to earth questions that deserve answers.

[@Duckytattz]

Sometimes our minds are the mountains in our way

[@ivarhennes4837]

Dr. Horton should be the one speaking for Christendom not Jordan Peterson (He still needs to receive the Good News. May our Lord send someone.), I grind my teeth every time he does this. On another note, thank you Sola Media. I always track Michael Horton and John MacArthur week by week to make sure I haven't missed the rapture.

[@jeffgough]

Thank you for making this video. I watched the Peterson / Dawkins video and was frustrated with Peterson not giving a direct answer to Dawkins’ fair questions. Ultimately, it’s because Peterson loves the wisdom of the Bible, but I believe has yet to accept it as God’s literal truth.

[@MrEljay2005]

Brilliant discussion. Thank you.

[@Pancakes479]

Peterson reads the Bible and only sees law, thinks that the Gospel is besides the point.

[@edwinohanlon3834]

I couldn’t put it any better than that. Viewing Christ’s sacrifice as a mere archetype simply isn’t enough to enter into relationship with God, but I worry he’s not searching for relationship but “truth, value, etc”

[@ComedianBobFarrell]

Jordon Peterson needs to make up his mind on if JESUS is who HE said HE is or not. Peterson was asked an open-ended question. Peterson always skirts the important questions.

[@echppll]

My ten year old son: (referring to Mike) man, this guy seems super wise.

[@johnalexis8284]

Peterson is an expert at not answering anything while trying to sound "professorial."

[@danblackwelder5261]

There were numerous miraculous births during this time period. So, one more would not be unusual.

[@amykdriskill5371]

He is not ready to defend his faith. He is not a TRUE believer...maybe he wants to be...but he isn't there.

[@RAWALITY]

Hes a Christian like trump is a christian like paula like kenneth

[@ginojones5857]

It's actually in Isaiah 7, and the hebrew word [עַלְמָה (almâ)] does mean Virgin when you understand it in the context of that culture. It is used as virgin in other scripture like Genesis 24. As far as the argument that it would be too hard for God to cause a teenager to conceive, remember he made Adam out of dirt, and then he reached inside of Adam and ripped out bone and flesh and made Eve.

[@JohnBarr-r5b]

Alma is only translated as virgin a couple of times, and as young woman many more times. Read all of Isaiah chapters 7 and 8 - do you really think the story is about a virgin? Don't take 7:14 out of context.

[@ginojones5857]

@@JohnBarr-r5b I'm not taking 7:14 out of context. In the context of that culture you cannot say that Almah means 'Not a Virgin', you are reading into it your own personal interpretation and you cannot establish scripturally what YOU are trying to sell. In the culture of that day where a bride would be stoned to death and her father would be an outcast, an almah would certainly be a virgin. In Torah the father and mother of the bride would get the bedsheets and keep them to prove that their daughter was a virgin, so that was never a question. And since marriages were within clans everyone know each other. If you look at the genealogies in the new testament Joseph and Mary were cousins, and Isaiah 7:14 is talking about Mary.

[@JohnBarr-r5b]

@@ginojones5857 Please read all of Isaiah chapters 7 and 8 (including the sex scene). Then check how Almah is translated throughout the Old Testament. If you look at the genealogies in the New Testament Jesus is related to Adam (who didn't exist) and the earth is just a few thousand years old. Are you sure you want to go there?

[@befast1973-g2f]

Virgins conceive all the time. My mother was a virgin when she conceived my older brother

[@ginojones5857]

@@befast1973-g2f Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. - Luke 1:34 - I don't think your mother conceived your older brother like this, and I don't think your older brother is the Son of God.

[@larryvincent1083]

JP is on the right track but he’s not born again, born from above, born by the life giving Holy Spirit. John 3:3 (ESV): Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Thank you for your labors, Dr. Horton.

[@MrLeadman12]

I understand the critique of Peterson, but let’s give him some credit for trying to point out the inconsistencies of Dawkins and his ilk. Dawkins says he’s interested in fact not myth. Petersons point is that is not true. Dawkins has his own set of myths that he takes for granted and which cannot be grounded in scientific knowledge. All moral claims which he certainly he believes whether he wants to or not, the awe that he experiences at the foot of human reason and scientific discovery, even the idea that the pursuit of truth in the form of scientific facts is a worthwhile goal, these are all myths, unscientific assumptions. Jordan is trying to wrestle with this. Dawkins is unwilling to admit it. I see Jordan as basically a more philosophically aware and self-critical Darwinian. Petersons approach certainly falls short, but he had Dawkins on the ropes several times in this interview.l, including in the clips you showed here. Please go back and review those highlights. Thank you.

[@PuppetryInMotion]

Fact.

[@alansmith934]

Where in Isaiah 9 can you find Mary or Virgin?

[@michellejohnsen912]

Isaiah 9:6 King James Version 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Maybe this verse is what they were thinking of? Due to the reference of mighty God being one of the titles of this child's birth And therefore it's a miracle?

[@EatHoneyBeeHappy]

@@michellejohnsen912 It was good of you to try and answer the gentleman's question, but nowhere in Isaiah 9:6 does it mention Mary or virgin or parthenogenesis, so we're still looking in Isaiah. Maybe a different verse you know of that we can't find has Mary or virgin?

[@michellejohnsen912]

@EatHoneyBeeHappy Isaiah 7:14 King James Version 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

[@michellejohnsen912]

@@alansmith934 yes, I copy/pasted that scripture in the post above

[@Phlebas9202]

Jordan is using a mythological apologetic argument. All apologetics are by definition insufficient as "proof". But you can appreciate the work even if he doesn't take the leap.

[@davking5]

The virgin birth is really not that hard. Well, it is for us, but not for God. He would have retained control of the world he created. Look deep into the theories of physics and you’ll find that all the “stuff” of our existence arises from a series of fundamental fields, seventeen types of particles each arising from its own field. If God controls our world at this level, he can do whatever he wants, turn water into wine, regenerate the sight of a blind man or make a virgin with child. The miraculous is merely a manifestation of his sovereign power.

[@PatricksLesson]

Historiography is tough on the Bible and it’s why NT Wright is doing his thing. Jordan is trying to keep Jesus in the midst of tough higher criticism.

[@MarcusWolford]

Jordan has a Christless Christianity - he discards Jesus for Sinai.

[@kevinholling9645]

If you believe in God and he made the heavens and earth a virgin birth is no big deal.

[@PuppetryInMotion]

Right. As if the Spirit who designed the whole reproductive system couldn't contribute the genetic material to a follicle and create an embryo. Luke called it the "overshadowing" of the Virgin, we would call it conception.

[@rsandy4077]

Let me tell probably Peterson didn’t commit to say yes it happened in history ( as he said yes to Alex in conversation with him by the way). If he says it happened the conversation was over. But Peterson inquired into the framing of the question and sought to reframed to make the answer more accessible. If Dawkins could see how metanarratives work he could have given a step forward and be more agnostic in his denial of the historical events in the Bible.

[@theoldpilgrimway9129]

Jordan Peterson, as much as I appreciate his acknowledgment of the existence of God, still makes Jesus' death and resurrection, including all the scripture, mere literature that somehow believes that it makes our life better, but in fact, it gives a false hope if it is not real and true. He sounds a lot like Kant.

[@Christus-totalis]

Mike, great closing argument. The Myth that became fact, yes and amen! Jordon P has had similar conversations with Jonathan Pageau and understands the significance of this. Please do a video on Pageau. But to his credit He is trying to re orientate the modernist paradigm to understand the value claims of the Christian worldview that if abandoned will result in catastrophe. I think Jordan would agree with the statement, the Logos murmurs in myth and speaks in the bible. I would also like to suggest the church created Dawkins, the dragon from Mt Crumpit has returned to burn the village. Finally the church needs to think about Christ's incarnated work as the foundation of reality not a historical actor in it. Christ Incarnation, death and resurrection is the foundation of reality, not simply a soteriological work but a ontological work as well. If we do this I believe we can unite the church at a unified table. If anyone is interested in exploring this blessings all kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZSnoWR3bp2IedE

[@matthewrasmussen4181]

Agree, Jordan is keeping one toe in the flesh and one on the Spirit. Sadly, these are the people Jesus says 'I never knew you'. Let's pray for Jordan, well all of them, but especially Jordan.

[@timhough9191]

Classic Peterson answering question about virgin birth by talking about resurrection. Also if virgin birth/resurrection is a metaphor what is the reality behind the metaphor. Metaphors that have no basis in reality are have no value

[@James-v1o]

Peterson reads the Bible through the lens of Carl Jung; myths tells us deep truths about human nature, life, humanity, etc. The myth may not be literally true but are still "true" in a deeper sense.

[@arlynsmith9196]

Thisi s not that complex for a true believer, as I am, to see that given a set of supernatural facts one cannot reduce that supernatural activity to a set of provable scientific occurances in the human realm. A true believer must see the supernatural nature of the virgin birth and resurrection and givn those are supernatural events there is no point in searching for human provable facts using human science.

[@peterroberts4509]

It's based on a pagan myth.

[@lzzrdgrrl7379]

Richard Dawkins priortises his individual ego and calls his conclusions 'truth'. His personal conclusions about the reality of the resurrection doesn't change the facts of human history from that event. This is the problem that Charles Taylor identifies as the buffered self........

[@alansmith934]

If Mary conceived via a man then the Adamic seed/sin would have been there? So Jesus had to be 100% pure. To carry this on to the ultimate end/reason. Why did Jesus have to die? Recorded history reports that man has offered a gift or sacrifice to their god/gods for various reasons. In the case of God (his followers as a believing nation), this was (in this particular situation) the form of an animal sacrifice. (There are many types of offerings recorded and I would like to concentrate on just this one) God required this in His plan of redemption because of the Sin of Adam & Eve. The offering to God had to be spotless and free from any blemish. Once a year on the day of Atonement the High priest would go behind the veil in the Temple and seek God’s forgiveness for the nation. If he was not pure in God’s sight he would be struck down and killed. If pure in God’s sight, the sins of the nation would be forgiven for the past year) Jesus was born not of man (the sin of Adam was not passed on through mankind) but by the Holy Spirit. (could not be born through the cursed Adamic line God offered Jesus as the ultimate unblemished sacrifice as the redemption of man’s sins. The veil in the temple was torn from Top to bottom, making access to God from then on always available and not just once per year. Whereas Jesus was one man at one place at one time By His sacrifice He sent us The Holy Spirit who is omnipresent and omnipotent

[@sergkapitan2578]

This story was directed against gnostic herecy that Jesus has not real human nature.... It you think what that means you will come with 180 grad opposit purpose in writing that story!!! Do you understand what I mean? Not only me... Many theologians would say to you the same thing....First,you need to understand that so called "salvation" was much misinterpreted... And the Bible is not always factually correct... The meaning of so called "atonement" is different from what many ascribed to it.... God does not need anything to "quanch his anger".... That is why Jesus is divine not in some DNA sense.... He does not need to be in order to ba our Savior in much deeper sense....

[@Boxerr54]

I only had to listen for 4 minutes and 41 seconds. Then, Horton repeats the nonsense. Isaiah is clearly mistranslated by the gospels. It is a fact. Dawkins is correct. Peterson is making good points. Horton, alas. Just another false apologist who can't deal with reality.