I seem to recall from my parochial school days that the Catholic Church has called it a miracle. Not making any inferences on anyone elseâs beliefs, but Iâm sure atheists and agnostics would disagree.
Itâs not about arguing. Many people still accept the faith-based explanation. Thatâs fine. Thereâs no reason to get all prickly because someone doesnât. Personally, since I do hold a belief in miracles, Iâd lean toward that until I saw some other proof.
The Bible says it was a virgin birth. Now, if you donât 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 donât know what could be offered as evidence, because Iâve 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. Itâs much like the Eucharist - stop trying to assert thereâs evidence of transubstantiation, call it what it is (a mystery) and accept that your belief in it is grounded in faith, not reason. It doesnât 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 itâs truth if you want it to be, and someone with the intent of accepting it as truth isnât going to accept arguments that say otherwise.
Instead: âShow me the proof.â ⌠âyou wonât accept it as proofâ ⌠âShow me anyway.â ⌠âOk, itâs in the Bible.â ⌠âYouâre not rationalâ âŚ
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 didnât, 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.
To me, that reads like youâre asserting thereâs 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. Iâd hate for you to feel I was continuing to harass you, but I will keep responding as long as you do.
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 Lukeâs accounts, there are significant similarities that these scholars believe must have been taken from the earlier (lost) âQâ account. âQâ, most likely, would have been written much earlier than either Matthew or Lukeâs accounts.
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.