P1 A human woman is a real person who can be pregnanted biologically.
P2 God is an impossibility to be real - see link below.
C3. Therefore a real woman getting pregnant by an impossible-to-be-real-God is an impossibility or oxymoron.
P1 and P2 are non-sequitor, i.e. do not follow.
Thus the conclusion C3 cannot be logically sequitor from P1 and P2.
Generally, Christians [in contrast to Muslims to Quran] do not believe the words in the NT are the exact words of God or Jesus but rather they are merely secondary reports of God words by the apostles via Jesus Christ. In addition, what is in the NT has been translated through various languages.
As such Christians [as advised by most preachers] will not take the NT word-for-word as fully literal but rather depend on the NT for its divine principles.
I noted most Christians do not take the virgin-birth literally in the biological sense.
You seem to be misinformed about Christianity. Jesus’ literal virgin birth was one of the five fundamentals of fundamentalist Christianity as formulated in the early 20th century. Belief in Christ’s literal virgin birth is still essential for Evangelical Christians who hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. Why would you exclude Evangelical Christians from your understanding of Christianity? The Pew Research Center 2014 survey in the United States identified the evangelical percentage of the population at 25.4 percent while Roman Catholics are 20.8 percent and mainline Protestants make up 14.7 percent. In addition to the Virgin birth, Roman Catholics subscribe to the doctrine of immaculate conception.
I understand the current default of most lay Christians is “the Bible is the INERRANT words of GOD” which is handed down via traditions. These lay Christians just follow like blind-sheeps.
However at present there are loads of research done and the general view of those in the know believe “Bible is not the INERRANT words of GOD.”
I am not that ignorant, I have been following with various debates and trends on this issue.
When cornered rationally, there is no way a rational Christian will ever insist “the Bible is the INERRANT words of GOD” because the evidence do not support this thesis.
Yes, it is the opinion of the theologians in Catholicism and the theologians of many other denominations. When it has to do with God’s absolute perfection, Prismatic appeals to the opinions of those theologians he considers
advanced. When it comes to the virgin birth he suddenly does not go along with the opinions of the accepted authorities of the churches involved. In the end he considers himself, The Theologian regarding beliefs he does not share. And never notices the irony of this.
I think Prismatic wants to dispose of the issue by means of his logical absolutistic syllogism. I see the problem as an epistemological one in the first place. It’s about the historical versus the mythical. I’ve spent a lot of time on on this issue in terms of the historical versus the mythical Jesus. The virgin birth narratives are case in point. On this level, evidence is limited and conclusions are all matters of more or less. But, the deeper issue is the question of the paradox of incarnation. The paradox is the presence of the infinite in the finite, the eternal in the temporal. This paradox is symbolized by the birth narratives of Jesus whether they are taken to be historical or mythical.
Is there anything wrong with that.
I argued convincingly to dismiss the question of biology with reference to Jesus’ birth.
I dismissed the biological consideration and stated the right-minded Christians are present relying on divine principles instead which need not be epistemological but rather metaphysical, ontological and theological.
I have no issues with theistic beliefs at present [not future] because I understand fully theism is a critical necessity to the majority in the absence of effective alternatives. However, the priority of humanity must be to address the evil laden elements within religions, especially those from Islam.
Incidentally, I posted my previous response to you before I saw the videos that you posted as a basis for your position with regard to biblical inerrancy. Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar who explicitly states he is not a Christian and therefore, his position on inerrancy doesn’t represent Christianity. Ravi Zacharias doesn’t speak for the Christians who believe that the Bible is inerrant. In Zacharias’ opinion, the Bible’s authority is based on fact that it is historically, philosophically and existentially accurate.
You claim you have argued convincingly. As I asked you before: who have you convinced?
Whether or not a literal virgin birth such as described in the birth narratives of Jesus is possible depends upon one’s assumptions about Ultimate Reality. Given the assumptions of modern science, such an event is highly improbable. Still, it isn’t impossible as you maintain. Many Christians still hold to supernaturalism, wherein God supervenes to suspend or act outside of the limits of natural law. They would take the virgin birth to be an instance of this. I interpret the story more moderately as mythological truth as I indicated above.