The birth of jesus

[Prismatic567]

I think Prismatic wants to dispose of the issue by means of his logical absolutistic syllogism.

Is there anything wrong with that.
I argued convincingly to dismiss the question of biology with reference to Jesus' birth.

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.

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.

[felix dakat]

I think Prismatic wants to dispose of the issue by means of his logical absolutistic syllogism.

Is there anything wrong with that.
I argued convincingly to dismiss the question of biology with reference to Jesus' birth.

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.

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.