Was the virgin birth allegory?


Yet you continue.


Sorry you feel harassed by me.


You’re not doing anything wrong.


I seem to recall from my parochial school days that the Catholic Church has called it a miracle. Not making any inferences on anyone else’s beliefs, but I’m sure atheists and agnostics would disagree.

It’s not about arguing. Many people still accept the faith-based explanation. That’s fine. There’s no reason to get all prickly because someone doesn’t. Personally, since I do hold a belief in miracles, I’d lean toward that until I saw some other proof.


The Bible says it was a virgin birth. Now, if you don’t believe that would you believe it was a virgin birth if Roman records had somehow stated there was a virgin birth occurring in Israel at the time? Of course not, you would just say that was a Roman myth along with Jove and Saturn.
What kind of evidence are you thinking of getting from records at this time that would influence you in the least?


That was the entire genesis of the discussion - he said that evidence supporting the Virgin Birth existed, and I was genuinely intrigued. I don’t know what could be offered as evidence, because I’ve never seen anything put forward other than the Bible, and in terms of objective verifiable evidence that makes about as much sense as using the Koran or Book of Mormon as evidence to the veracity of those faiths.

A secondary source from something outside Christianity would be interesting, to say the least.


And that makes much more sense to me. It’s much like the Eucharist - stop trying to assert there’s evidence of transubstantiation, call it what it is (a mystery) and accept that your belief in it is grounded in faith, not reason. It doesn’t detract from its significance to do so.


Actually, the entire genesis of the discussion was this:

The wiser response to that would be to point out the flip side of my statement: that it’s truth if you want it to be, and someone with the intent of accepting it as truth isn’t going to accept arguments that say otherwise.

Instead: “Show me the proof.” … “you won’t accept it as proof” … “Show me anyway.” … “Ok, it’s in the Bible.” … “You’re not rational” …

I never claimed proof (that you would accept.)

But you persist.


My mistake is in being curious whether you were claiming evidence for the truth of a story that was something other than the source material. You didn’t, and we went from there.

But stop responding, please. I prefer not to harass you.


Your mistake was asserting the strawman that I was claiming evidence (that you would accept).

My mistake was not putting the kabosh on it when the strawman sprouted, and instead answered it as a legitimate question. I made only a weak effort to end it.


You initially said this:

To me, that reads like you’re asserting there’s evidence. I proceeded to ask, politely, what evidence there was, and you referred to the Bible. Which is not evidence, only a circular reassurance of your faith. And that is fine - there are different means of expressing a truth. But that is not evidence, any more than the examples I gave regarding Islam or Mormonism are evidence to the truth of the claims those religions make.

You can always choose not to respond. I’d hate for you to feel I was continuing to harass you, but I will keep responding as long as you do. :blush:


Oh, blah, blah, blah.

Splitting hairs.

I made the mistake of entertaining your strawman. Be glad that I’m taking the blame.


That’s hardly splitting hairs. It was your allusion, not mine.

I’m not glad at all. I thought we were having a civil discussion until you alleged I was harassing you, which was disappointing.


This would not be considered evidence either, because evidence consists of something physical/measurable. Some scholars term it more as a curiosity. The story of the virgin conception/birth arose in the Jewish community about fifty years after the death of Jesus. First, the Jewish community is was an odd environment for such a story to appear.

Second, while there are differences in Matthew and Luke’s accounts, there are significant similarities that these scholars believe must have been taken from the earlier (lost) “Q” account. “Q”, most likely, would have been written much earlier than either Matthew or Luke’s accounts.


Libs think anything they do is civil.

I used the word in a general sense. You demanded precision. And as you point out, I only alluded to evidence. You took it to the next level. And then started your lecturing about fact and faith and rationality.


Are you calling me a lib?


IIRC, there was a trial, a man for claiming to be the King of the Jews.
Romans kept very good records of such events.

Yet, zero, nada…nothing. Not one single record.

The entire story of the virgin birth is here say.

It did not happen.

(and again, it is not even an original story)


What would not be hearsay?

Someone would actually view the immaculate conception?


I would have taken that job in a second.


His actual existence.

No record of it.

If there is no record of him ever existing, that rebukes the idea that there was a virgin birth.