The virgin birth story. Should we believe it?

[notachance]

Claim 1: Jesus was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 2: Krishna was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 3: Buddha was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 4: Mitra was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 5: Marduk was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 6: Horus was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 7: Notachance NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 8: Perseus was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 9: Theseus was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 10: Dionyus was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 11: Hercules was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 12: Pan was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 13: Ion was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 14: Romulus was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 15: Asclepius was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 16: Helen was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 17: Alexander the Great was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 18: Augustus was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 19: Zarathustra was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 20: Huitzilopochtli was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 21: Pharaoh Amenkept III was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 22: The sun God Ra was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 23: Genghis Khan was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 24: Melanippe was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 25: Auge was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 26: Attis was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 27: Antiope was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 28: Auge was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Questions for debate:
Is there any good reason to take all of these claims seriously?

Is there are any good reasons to take half of them seriously, but not the other half?

Is there any good reason to take one of them seriously, but take all the other ones not seriously?

If you had a personal religious experience in which a voice in your head told you that Genghis Khan was born of a virgin, would you believe it? If not, why not?

[S-word]

You will address me with the respect that every person on this forum deserves and is intitled to receive, otherwise you will be ignored.

Come back when you learn to speak in a language that can be understood. I have neither the time nor the inclination to attempt to sift through a bucket full of verbal dysentery in search of logic that I know before hand, will not be there.

Fair enough.

I made the baseless, unwarranted, senseless, evidence-free statement that the Lord of the Rings is "revealed truth from God".

You made the baseless, unwarranted, senseless, evidence-free statement that the Bible is "revealed truth from God".

Why don't we both retract our outlandish faith-statements, and resume our debate from where it was sidetracked by baseless religious propaganda and childhood indoctrination.

I have ZERO empirical evidence that the Lord of the Rings is "revealed truth from God".

You have ZERO empirical evidence that the Bible is "revealed truth from God".

Let's never bring up this silliness about "revealed truth from God" ever again, because neither of us can back up such a claim with any empirical evidence whatsoever, agreed?

Not respectful enough young fellow.

Alright, I'll say it even more respectfully:

Your eminence,
While I am a mere mortal and your enlightened perfections shines upon the entire world with the brightness of a thousand supernovas, it seems that the debate we were having - which I found educational in the extreme, given your wisdom and scholarly acumen - was derailed by an accidental misstatement from your illustrious part, whereby you inadvertently stated, without any evidentiary backing whatsoever, that the Bible is revealed truth from God. While I obviously immediately accepted this as divine truth, being that it came from your illustrious eminence, it just so happens that the rules of this forum require that you PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS. So, in his infinite wisdom and mercy, would his majestic highness please be so kind as to back up his claim that the Bible is any more "revealed truth" than the Lord of the Rings is?

Kidding aside, my friend, may I suggest you lighten up? Please don't take the silly message above as an insult or a snub, just as a suggestion that we pursue this debate vigorously, but with a light heart. I didn't say ANYTHING disrespectful in my previous post which you claim was "Not respectful enough". If you don't care to discuss this with me, you don't have to, but please don't invoke disrespect when no disrespect has been displayed, because otherwise it becomes obvious to all that you're trying to deflect scrutiny from the substance of your claims.

If you have empirical evidence that the Bible is "revealed truth from God", please present it. Otherwise, no monologues about God, no invocations about Hinduism, no false parallels between the space-time continuum (including the 4th dimension) and your new-age ideas about reality, are going to make a splash on this forum.

Just saying.

Sarcasin is the lowest form of wit and your sarcastic response is disrepectful in the extreme. "Your eminence," While I am a mere mortal and your enlightened perfections shines upon the entire world with the brightness of a thousand supernovas, it seems that the debate we were having - which I found educational in the extreme, given your wisdom and scholarly acumen - was derailed by an accidental misstatement from your illustrious part, whereby you inadvertently stated, without any evidentiary backing whatsoever, that the Bible is revealed truth from God.?

This lowly form of sarcasim shows that you have not as yet understood what showing respect to your fellow members in this forum means.

As you say, the rules of this forum require that you PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS. You have made the statement that I claimed that the Bible is the revealed truth from God.

My claim is that the truth of God can be found in the bible, not that the bible is the revealed truth of God, two totally different things my disrespectful friend. The Bible as I have shown has been corrupted by those poor souls who have been deceived into believing that the man Jesus was born of some supposed virgin birth and did not come as a human being. Now we wait for you to provide evidence to back up your deceitful statement, that I claimed that the Bible is the revealed truth of God.

The truth of God can be found in the writtings of many different religious bodies, and even science has proven that a mind capable of comprehending mind has evolved within the universal body which began, as an invisible cosmic seed. Much the same as that body which began as an invisible egg, is the evolved body, in which you, the mind, and godhead to that body has developed/evolved.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.�

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.“Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.�

Where would we find a teaching that has been spread throughout the earth, that refuses to acknowlede that Jesus was a human being, born of the seed of Adam. For any living being that is not descended from the seed of the first human being, is not a human being.

[notachance]

My claim is that the truth of God can be found in the bible, not that the bible is the revealed truth of God, two totally different things my disrespectful friend.

Ok, sounds good. I retract my notion that you said that "the Bible is the revealed truth of God".

I accept that what you said is that "the truth of God can be found in the bible".

Go ahead and provide evidence to back that up.

In fact, let's start even easier. Why don't you back up with evidence the claim that such a thing as "the truth of God" even exists?

Make it nice and simple:

Evidence of the "truth of God" 1:_____________________

Evidence of the "truth of God" 2:_____________________

Evidence of the "truth of God" 3:_____________________

If you have more than three pieces of evidence for the fact that you possess knowledge of the "Truth of God", please do not list just the first three pieces of evidence, but go ahead and list as many as you like.



By the way, sarcasm is spelled S-A-R-C-A-S-M.

You're welcome.

[S-word]

. . . . , what you believe is totally irrelevant to a true believer, who accepts that the man Jesus was the one who was chosen as the earthly host body, through who "The Son of Man," the King and supreme ruler of all the earth, has revealed himself to we who await his salvation.

The next ' true believer ' to legitimately manifest the bible Story book promises ' already a given ' to such a person, will be the very first outside of that Story book in history!

For starters, IF you S-word truly consider your self a ' true and genuine Story book jesus' believer ' are you (OR any other that feels inclined to have arrogated that title for themselves) willing to demonstrate their/your abilities to legitimately manifest those promises ' already a given ' to such a jesus' believer?

By way of initial eligibility (NB: all your predecessors failed before you) however they admitted that ALL so called christians are malignant sinners and they quoted the following as their proof -

but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. (Romans 7:23) ASV Story book

So ANY wishing to step up and be scrutinised for legitimacy first please advise ' if you agree with Romans 7:23 that you are ALL still a practising or active Story book defined sinner? '.

OR

Legitimately demonstrate Romans 7:23 is incorrect according to your beliefs and that you have already successfully become a mirror image of your Story book human jesus and ceased ALL forms of sin (apparently?)

Once eligibility has been confirmed, I will expect those successfull entrants to move to the primary stage and legitimately manifest ALL the Story book bible promises ' already a given to a genuine jesus' believer '.

Typical BS excuses for their prophesied and impending abject 100% failure will be permitted out of my ongoing benevolence, however such 100% typical previous outbursts will not be counted as legitimate support for their current cause but in fairness used against it!

So I'm ready when you are S-word or any of your like -minded associates wish to ' step-up for eligibility to start ' so IF needed, start a New Thread and try your luck? LOL!

My time on the computer is very limited, as I've got an interesting life that I live.

And you my friend, are pretty low on my list of priorities, but I will do as you, who admit that you don't understand the christian concept of God, let alone that of a "Son of Man, have requested, and I will start a new thread when time permits.

Did you know that I used to breed free range chickens before I retired? The most comical thing that you see in a chicken yard, is a young rooster, strutting around, puffing out his chest and crowing in his attempt to show that he is top of the pecking order, then to see the old rooster step forward and flog the hell out of him. Ah yes, It's enough to make all the observers laugh their heads off.

But I digress, as I was saying, when and if time permits I will begin the thread that you have requested.

[Jester]

Moderator Warning

Do you alway rabbit on and rant rubbishing senseless rhetoric such as the above?

If you have nothing intelligent to contribute to the debate, perhaps someone might be able to offer you a toilet bowl in which you can dribble your waste waffle.

This is clearly uncivil. In addition, it contributes nothing of relevance to the debate. Be sure to follow the rules in the future.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[catalyst]

[font=Arial]But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting. {everlasting: Heb. the days of eternity} (Micah 5:2) KJV Story book

Why were there NO High Priests, nor Sadducees, nor Pharisees in attendence at Bethlehem IF the birth of this highly anticipated and prophesied ' Jewish Messiah ' was to be born in Bethlehem according to the well-known prophecy of Micah 5:2, known well enough that simple shepherds were aware (apparently?).

Also, interestingly enough to read Micah 5:2, Bethlehem Ephratah is a clan and not actually a PLACE (as in: town, city, village..etc).

Hmm!, where did you get that from, you provided no legitimate evidence?

The Tanakh

Michah - Micah - Chapter 5

1. And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from days of yore.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... pter-5.htm

This is also backed up by verses in 1 Chronicles 2:

50. These were the sons of Caleb the son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah: Shobal the father of Kirjath-Jearim.
51. Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Beth-Gader.
52. And Shobal the father of Kirjath-Jearim, who ruled over half the Menuhoth, had sons.
53. And the families of Kirjath-Jearim: the Jithrites, and the Puthites, and the Shumathites, and the Mishrathites; from these came the Zorathites and the Eshtaolites.
54. The sons of Salma: Bethlehem, and the Netophathites, Atroth Beth-Joab, and half the Manahtites, [and] the Zorathites.
55. And the families of scholars, those who dwelt with Jabez: Tirathites, Shimathites, Suchathites; they are the Kinites, who were descended from Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.

composer wrote:

Conversely, the following sources state: e.g. -

Ephratah was the ancient name of Bethlehem Judah during the time of Jacob, the father of the twelve tribes. There was much history in this location, Jacob buried his beloved Rachel near the gate at Bethlehem, it also was the home of Ruth and the birthplace of king David, and of course "David's greater son" the Lord Jesus Christ. Bethlehem means the House of Bread, and the land was inherited by the tribe of Judah, the messianic tribe. (Source: http://www.bible-history.com/sketches/i ... ratah.html (My Emphasis))

Frankly, considering how many christians throughout the history have fabricated info in an attempt to support their chose cause, it does not surprise me that bible-history.com would make such a claim. I also have no doubt that they also claim that Josephus in Antiquities also was referring to "Jesus of Nazareth" when he mentioned the name, Jesus. In actuality, the ancient name of Bethlehem was Beit Lahama, originally settled by the Canaanites and named after one of their gods: Lahama. They even built a temple in this god's honour way back, on the mount where there "Church of the Nativity" is now located, which BTW was commissioned to be done in the 4th century CE by Constantines mama, Helena. The original "nativity" church was completed in 333CE but was destroyed and then rebuilt around 565 CE.Strange isn' that an strange that an event alleged to have happened circa 6BCE - 10BCE, had not grabbed enough attention, perhaps not thought worthy enough to even "comemmorate" until some CENTURIES later. Also interesting that Nazareth had not been mentioned AT ALL in ANY OT texts. Joshua 19 for example mentions ,a whole heap of places, within near spitting distance of where Nazareth is now, but again.. no Nazareth. Likewise no historians or geographers of the (c) time mention it. Josephus for example (born c. 37CE),lived part of his life in a town called Japha, just one mile southwest of where Nazareth NOW is, but didn't mention Nazareth either, despite mentioning at least 40 Galillean towns, villages, cities in his writings. I personally find that odd, considering this place was supposedly an IMPORTANT locale

Nazareth had no mention in geography OR history at all, until the 4th century, and surprise surprise...it appears to have stemmed from Helena and Constantine, which it seems MUCH of the whole "nativity" concept, was born.


composer wrote:

Strong's renders Micha 5:2
BDB/Thayers # 672
0672 'Ephraath {ef-rawth'} or 'Ephrathah {ef-raw'-thaw}
from 06509;;
AV - Ephrath 5, Ephratah 5; 10
Ephrath or Ephratah = "ash-heap: place of fruitfulness"
n pr loc
1) a place near Bethel where Rachel died and was buried
2) another name for Bethlehemn pr f
3) wife of Caleb [/font]

Strong's has been wrong before multiple times, hence bringing out "stronger strong's", in the claim to rectify the glaringly obvious flaws. Funnily enough, the "stronger" strong's still holds many of its original errors. *shrug* What it did get right it seems, as per the tanakh at least, is that Ephrathah was Caleb's wife (his second wife anyway ).

It seems the more research done and the findings from this research on the DSS; the more Strong's is WRONG.


Composer wrote:

&

Shepherds allegedly ' made it known abroad ' after their visit to see the babe Jesus, so the Jews would undoubetdly have also been informed or made aware, but there is no record of them even bothering to see for themselves. That proves again, that the whole incident is spurious. - And when they had seen [it], they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. 18 And all they that heard [it] wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. (Luke 2:17 - 18) KJV story book

Having seen and, they published around the declaration that having been told to them concerning the little child this. Luke 2:18 And all those having heard wondered about those having been told by the shepherds to them. (Luke 2:17 - 18) EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT (LHS) story book

And having seen it, they published THAT DECLARATION which had been SPOKEN to them about this CHILD. 18 And All THOSE HAVING HEARD, wondered at the THINGS RELATED to them by the SHEPHERDS. (Luke 2:17 - 18) EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT (RHS) story book

Hence you other conclusions are likewise currently in serious doubt as to their legitimacy?

Well, considering the information I have included above is from the tanakh as to bethlehem and it quite obviously being determined to refer to a CLAN rather than a PLACE, then frankly, I reckon the original Hebrew writings hold much more water, when translated into english by fluent speakers of Hebrew.

As to Luke...... it appears that no one.. whether abroad or LOCALS knew of anything regarding to the events the writings of Luke prattled on about. Such info is no where BUT biblical account. Gee, even Mark nor John (supposedly Jesus' cousin) didn't have ONE WORD to say on it. Re John.... considering Jesus' "virgin" mum was the one to supposedly pass onto Elizabeth, that she was preggers with John, ( message left at the same time to pass on when Gabe's came to tell Mary that "God" was gonna supernaturally rape her so she could have "jesus") there would have AT LEAST been "talk" amongst family as to the "miracles" surrounding, not ONLY John's but also Jesus' birth.. But....NADA from John at all!

For the record too, from memory, I don't believe that Paul even talked of any "virgin birth" in Bethlehem NOR mentioned Nazareth in any way, shape or form. One would think that if "jesus christ" visited Paul in a vision, even after a smack to the head..... and his "vision" was REAL, that "jesus christ" would have clued him in.

There are other things I would perhaps like to add or even reiterate, but I don't have time now and also, there are a couple of other comments on other threads I still have to reply to. I look forward to your reply, Composer.

Catalyst

[Composer]

My time on the computer is very limited, as I've got an interesting life that I live.

Meaning?

And you my friend,

I appreciate you ' wish to call me friend ' however you have NOT earned that right so please do not make claims about our relationship that isn't true!

are pretty low on my list of priorities,

Meaning?

but I will do as you, who admit that you don't understand the christian concept of God, let alone that of a "Son of Man, have requested,

I agree they are mere human concepts, be they Mormon, SDA, J.W's, Born agains, trinitarians to name a few all ' claiming to be christians or Story book jesus' believers', however the legitimate evidence they or ANY are anything more than a human concept is zero, which I am most legitimately aware of!

and I will start a new thread when time permits.

Best of luck whatever topic you choose!

Did you know that I used to breed free range chickens before I retired? The most comical thing that you see in a chicken yard, is a young rooster, strutting around, puffing out his chest and crowing in his attempt to show that he is top of the pecking order, then to see the old rooster step forward and flog the hell out of him. Ah yes, It's enough to make all the observers laugh their heads off.

I'm pleased it amused you to spend so much time observing chooks. Perhaps IF you spent less time doing that and more time looking for legitimate evidence for your alleged religious cause you wouldn't always keep getting flogged so badly!

But I digress, as I was saying, when and if time permits I will begin the thread that you have requested.

Looking forward to that greatly when your time permits!

[notachance]

guys, can you start new threads if you want to discuss new topics, please?

Of the last 20 or so posts, not even one is remotely related to my OP.

The question is: of the dozens of un-sourced, anonymous unverifiable miraculous birth stories that exist, which ones should we take seriously, and why?

[S-word]

My time on the computer is very limited, as I've got an interesting life that I live.

Meaning?

And you my friend,

I appreciate you ' wish to call me friend ' however you have NOT earned that right so please do not make claims about our relationship that isn't true!

are pretty low on my list of priorities,

Meaning?

but I will do as you, who admit that you don't understand the christian concept of God, let alone that of a "Son of Man, have requested,

I agree they are mere human concepts, be they Mormon, SDA, J.W's, Born agains, trinitarians to name a few all ' claiming to be christians or Story book jesus' believers', however the legitimate evidence they or ANY are anything more than a human concept is zero, which I am most legitimately aware of!

and I will start a new thread when time permits.

Best of luck whatever topic you choose!

Did you know that I used to breed free range chickens before I retired? The most comical thing that you see in a chicken yard, is a young rooster, strutting around, puffing out his chest and crowing in his attempt to show that he is top of the pecking order, then to see the old rooster step forward and flog the hell out of him. Ah yes, It's enough to make all the observers laugh their heads off.

I'm pleased it amused you to spend so much time observing chooks. Perhaps IF you spent less time doing that and more time looking for legitimate evidence for your alleged religious cause you wouldn't always keep getting flogged so badly!

But I digress, as I was saying, when and if time permits I will begin the thread that you have requested.

Looking forward to that greatly when your time permits!

S-word wrote:
My time on the computer is very limited, as I've got an interesting life that I live.

[composer’s Response]…..Meaning?

[S-word’s Response]….. Meaning, that unlike some, who sit around all day gazing at a computer scene, debating with people who they see as mental retards, I find that there is so much more interesting things to occupy my valuable time. And once you are over seventy, time becomes more and more precious. There is so much more that I wish to observe within this three dimensional world. There is so much more information, that “I,� (the light and life of this body) want to take in through the senses of this physical womb in which “I� (the invisible mind/spirit) am developing, before it is returned to the universal elements from which it was created, and the umbilical cord that binds “ME� to this visible three dimensional world, is severed.

S-word wrote:
And you my friend,

[composer’s Response]…..I appreciate you ' wish to call me friend ' however you have NOT earned that right so please do not make claims about our relationship that isn't true!

[S-word’s Response]….. No sweat. There are so many names that I would like to call you, but I don’t believe that you would want me to call you by those names either.

S-word wrote:
are pretty low on my list of priorities,

[composer’s Response]….. Meaning?

[S-word’s Response]….. Meaning, exactly what has been said. Of all the things I wish to do with what is left of my valuable time in this mortal body of matter; debating with the likes of people such as yourself, is way, way, down on my list of priorities.

S-word wrote:
but I will do as you, who admit that you don't understand the christian concept of God, let alone that of a "Son of Man, have requested,

[composer’s Response]….. I agree they are mere human concepts, be they Mormon, SDA, J.W's, Born agains, trinitarians to name a few all ' claiming to be christians or Story book jesus' believers', however the legitimate evidence they or ANY are anything more than a human concept is zero, which I am most legitimately aware of!

[S-word’s Response]….. I agree with you, they are not concepts that you will not find in the minds of creatures that are lower on the evolutionary ladder than mankind, they are mere human concepts and yet, although I do not agree with the concepts of the groups that you have above mentioned, I do find them more convincing than the concepts of they, who belong to the “Godless� religion.

But by saying “MERE human,� are you suggesting that your observations have proven to you that an intellect greater than that of the mind of man has evolved? If so, which mind do you believe is the MOST HIGH to have evolved since the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity of origin was spatially separated by what is called “The Big Bang?

S-word wrote:
and I will start a new thread when time permits.

[composer’s Response]….. Best of luck whatever topic you choose!

[S-word’s Response]….. Oh, the topic will still be “The Supposed Virgin birth,� as there are many of your misleading and inaccurate statements that need to be corrected.

S-word wrote:
Did you know that I used to breed free range chickens before I retired? The most comical thing that you see in a chicken yard, is a young rooster, strutting around, puffing out his chest and crowing in his attempt to show that he is top of the pecking order, then to see the old rooster step forward and flog the hell out of him. Ah yes, It's enough to make all the observers laugh their heads off.

[composer’s Response]….. I'm pleased it amused you to spend so much time observing chooks. Perhaps IF you spent less time doing that and more time looking for legitimate evidence for your alleged religious cause you wouldn't always keep getting flogged so badly!

[S-word’s Response]….. In my seventy odd years on this earth,

I’ve been hit with bricks and sticks and even barstools,
And I can hold me own in any push and shove,
But I’ll tell you this old mate, when I sit down to debate
I’ll prove to most, that there’s a God of love.

There are of course, some who will forever be blind to the truth, simply because they refuse to look/see. Those minds are all mixed up and set as hard as concrete, it will take more that words to smash into the dark dungeons that they have created for themselves.

What a shame that you yourself have not dedicated more of your time observing the natural things, such as chooks, trees, and the seeds that they come from. Perhaps then, you may have come to the logical conclusion that within this eternal evolving universal body, a supreme personality of Godhead has evolved.

S-word wrote:
But I digress, as I was saying, when and if time permits I will begin the thread that you have requested.

[composer’s Response]….. Looking forward to that greatly when your time permits!

[S-word’s Response]….. As you say: “When my valuable time permits.�

[ThatGirlAgain]

guys, can you start new threads if you want to discuss new topics, please?

Of the last 20 or so posts, not even one is remotely related to my OP.

The question is: of the dozens of un-sourced, anonymous unverifiable miraculous birth stories that exist, which ones should we take seriously, and why?

I have (I believe) given explicit reasons above why the claim about Jesus should not be given credence. That is because I knew where the story originated and knew the context in which it was written. I cannot address the other 27 alleged claims because I do not know those details. Can you supply sources for the existence of those other claims?

[catalyst]

guys, can you start new threads if you want to discuss new topics, please?

Of the last 20 or so posts, not even one is remotely related to my OP.

The question is: of the dozens of un-sourced, anonymous unverifiable miraculous birth stories that exist, which ones should we take seriously, and why?

Hi notachance,

I thought I was staying on topic by discussing the alleged birth of "jesus of nazareth." I guess though on reading back through my reply, it was going a tad off track by mentioning events surrounding THAT example specifically. Apologies.

So, to get to answering the nuts and bolts of your OP,

notachance wrote:

Questions for debate:
Is there any good reason to take all of these claims seriously?

NO.

Is there are any good reasons to take half of them seriously, but not the other half?

NO.

Is there any good reason to take one of them seriously, but take all the other ones not seriously?

Not of any of those you mentioned.

As to the OLDEST claim as to "virgin birth" though, yes I take that seriously, in that, it is the point from which all the above claims derive, which in its own way, show all of the above to be false.

What IS so believable about their original take on parthenogenesis, is in it they identify that many a reptile and insect and birds are capable of "virgin birth", which has been shown to be the truth. Pretty full on and quite amazing for a religion that was founded 15000 odd years ago, and they realised such a truth back then!!

If you had a personal religious experience in which a voice in your head told you that Genghis Khan was born of a virgin, would you believe it? If not, why not?

No, because Genghis Khan was not a bird, reptile (some may beg to differ, at least in a sense derogatory to any reptile), nor an insect. It has been PROVEN in other species to happen, but not in humans.

Cat.

PS. As to YOU in your OP example....hey....since I was young and when I "knew" what sex was all about, I used to want to believe that I was a product of NO hanky panky, but rather, just miraculously appeared!! WANTING to believe something though, doesn't make it a reality.