We hear a lot about how the OT is allegory and we shouldnt take things literally. What about miracles in the NT? Theres a lot of virgin birth myths. Was jesus actually born of virgin birth?
Considering there is not a single historical record of his existence, during his alleged lifetime (non-biblical) , I will assert it is an allegory.
That’s what she said.
Surely theres something of note considering how prominent abrahamic religion is
Ok that was blasphemously funny.
There were many religions based on similar stories, that were around long before Christianity.
Saul (Paul) is/was the king of marketing.
Consider this, the Romans did a fine job of keeping records. Why nothing in their historical documents mentioning his crucification?
Try explaining the Virgin birth to a child and not feel creepy.
Bill Clinton was just channeling St. Joseph:
PS: The virgin birth is allegory if that’s what you intend it to be. Someone with that intent isn’t going to see evidence that would change his mind.
There’s evidence supporting the Virgin Birth? No snark intended, I’m genuinely curious.
You won’t accept it as evidence.
It’s in the Bible.
You’re right, that doesn’t serve as evidence.
Having said that, what are you thinking of, the Gospels?
I see no need to discuss it further with you then.
You understand the dilemma, correct? Belief is not evidence.
Imagine someone telling you that there’s evidence that the Angel Gabriel did in fact visit Mohammad to help him write the Koran, and when you ask for that evidence they hand you the Koran.
So what’s the point in asking for evidence when you’ve pre-disqualified it?
You asked for evidence. I said you wouldn’t accept it. You agreed.
Nothing more to say here.
There is no evidence, in the traditional usage of the term, of the Virgin birth. If you stretch the meaning to include fairy tales, then I guess there’s all kinds of evidence.
You are claiming a story is its own evidence that it’s true. You’re right, I don’t accept that. And rationally neither should you.
You believe in the story, and that’s fine. But there’s no evidence to the truth of it.
This isn’t about arguing, it’s about understanding the difference between faith and evidence. You are attempting to use the former to serve as the latter, and that’s wrong.
But you were going to let this go four posts ago.
Of course it is.
That was about further discussion of the proof itself.
Now I’m just pushing back on your harassment, your accusation of irrationality, etc.
We disagree. We even agree that we disagree, and we agree on what we disagree about. You’ve said your say.
All that’s left now is for you to tell me how I should think, and toss in some zingers if you can.
Harassment? Gracious - it certainly wasn’t my intention to make you feel harassed.
Faith is not evidence. Would you accept the claim from a mormon that the angel Moroni revealed itself to Joseph Smith just because said Mormon handed you the Book of Mormon as his evidence?