I want to debate on this account; I know that it's a scientific impossibility that a virgin birth can even occur...which should end the argument there.
That and it's silly to say you're your own father...
But what else can I bring up?
What else can I allude to that will, without a doubt, prove that Jesus is completely fictional?
Historical can be altered/interpreted different ways, so I tend to lean more towards the scientific fields for evidence on this.
But I'm open to whatever anyone suggests.
But the science can only tell you that he wasn't born of a virgin, not that a person named Jesus on whom the stories are based didn't exist.
If you're just trying to show that Jesus, even if he existed, wasn't who The Gospels assume he was, that's rather easy to do.
Talk about the conflicting accounts of his birth, life, and death (and post-death for that matter).
Talk about the Synoptic Problem.
Talk about the nature of the texts as evidence for what he is likely to have said and done. Dating. Authorship. The way the earliest Christian writings (Paul's letters) don't talk about a narrative of his life, that the first narratives of his life come from decades later.
The fact that not a single contemporaneous extra-biblical account of his life exists.
The only way to talk about whether he did or did not in fact exist is through historical methodology, and that's always probabilistic. It's extremely problematic to talk about probabilistic history and scientific proof in the same breath.
Proving that Jesus never existed is not a sensible way to go about it. You can if you so wish make a case of the implausibility of Jesus being a historical person by showing that there exist no convincing evidence of this person existing.
It is always possible to move the goalpost. For example many atheists assume that, well if Jesus wasn't the son of God and didn't perform miracles he might have been another one of those slightly mad doomsday preachers with progressive leanings who might have gained some popularity by doing a few tricks that with time got greatly exaggerated. He might have gotten into trouble with the authorities or that might just be added in the gospel-account to make the narrative connect with Paul's central theme of crucifixion & resurrection.
That there isn't any historical record of him is then easily explained away with Roman bureaucratic inadequacy and that Jesus total irrelevance explains his invisibility for contemporary chroniclers.
If that makes sense to someone then every next step that increases the unlikelihood of any other historical aspect of Jesus or diminishes his historical relevancy to infinitesimal proportions can also be met with unquestioning acceptance. This way you can save Jesus by throwing him away.
I tend to think jesus did actually exist...(probably with a more aramaic name)
So for argument's sake jesus actually did exist, and there was proof, it would not, nor could it, prove the supernatural...
The supernatural is created around an ignorence of the natural world, and fiction is born from that, as they say "art imitates life" so yes I (personally) think a jesus existed, had followers and was pute to death like any descenters would in the 1st century in the Roman empire...
Do I think he rose to forgive me? no. Do I think any of this was devine? no. Do I think neo from "the Matrix" was the 'one' no.. not even a good actor....
Art imitates life so finding proof of jesus is irrelevent to me...
I agree. I think Jesus did exist, had followers and was put to death. And that's the end of it. He was not the son of God, he didn't rise up after being killed, blah blah blah. I think of him more in terms of how I think of Ghandi, for example. Just peaceful men with a pretty good message. Wandering hippies. He was a dissenter and was killed like any other dissenter at that time. I admire the hell out of him but don't think he was god or the son of god. Things were grotesquely exagerated as time went by. And we all know that he didn't have light brown long straight hair. He would've had kinky black hair and had dark skin like everyone else in that time and place. Many people wrote about him long after he died and many of the writings were never included in the bible. We all know that our holidays once were actually pagan holidays. I can undestand how people would perhaps believe this stuff centuries ago before there was a vast knowledge of science but I just don't see how people can believe this superstious crap now.
This is probably a moot point, since it's been pointed out in various places that the word didn't necessarily mean someone who had never had sex, but a woman who was unmarried (who was "supposed" to have not had sex yet because of her unmarried status)... but a "virgin birth" can most definitely occur if semen gets close enough to the woman's vagina. It's exceedingly rare, but it can and does happen. It's not the same as the idea of a virgin who's sexually "pure" in the Christian sense and has never been close to a man, but pregnancy can occur even if there's never penetration; all that's required is just one really strong swimmer. It happens now and, knowing people and their sex drives, probably happened then as well.
Especially these days we can just medically implant the seed without the need of intercourse. Virgin birth. :P
Yeah. XD But it can happen accidentally too.
The whole concept of virgin birth in Christianity stinks with conspiracy. Maybe Jesus did exist, but his story has been exaggerated to great proportions to further the Church's interest. This point can be put forward with the fact that the virgin birth prophesy was a deliberate translation error. The Hebrew word "Almah" means a young woman(maiden). When the Bible was translated into Greek, this word became virgin in Isaiah 7:14 . Many Jewish scholars have criticised the Christians for this. Most Christians respond with the statement that "Almah" is traditionally being used for both virgin and maiden. This ofcourse, is a lie. There are seven places in the Bible where "Almah" has been used. In the most versions "Almah" is translated into Virgin only the Isaiah prophecy. In rest of the passages "Almah" means "maiden". Also there is another word in Hebrew for virgin "bethuwlah". Infact there are versions of bible which have the word maiden in the Isaiah passage instead of virgin. The first contender to the monopoly of the King James version was burned for being honest about this fact.
One would wonder, why would the early Church take such a risk in introducing the idea of virgin birth and subsequent Mary worship... The mystery lies in another virgin birth that happened before Christ. The concept of Isis as a mother deity was prevalent in the pre-Christian society. Portraying Jesus as a virgin born God, helped the pagans relate to Christianity.
Even if Christians go into denial against all these facts, there is another massive error in the Gospels that they cannot deny.. Matthew's account of the genealogy of Christ differs that of Luke. Christians have ofcourse given several explanations for this over the past 2000 years, yet it still makes a serious dent on the claim of the Bible being literal and true.
(NIV) Isaiah 7:14 : Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
* Immanuel means "God with us".
Virgin birth is not impossible, but in humans, the product has to be a genetic clone of the mother. For Jeebus to have been born of "Virgin Mary," he would have been her identical daughter.
Personally, I don't feel the need to find conclusive proof that he did or didn't exist. The stories that surround Jeebus are so wildly improbable, or completely impossible, that I feel about as much need to find scientific proof that Star Wars is fiction.
If, by some magic, you were to actually turn water into wine, the radiation given off from the fusion of hydrogen & oxygen into complex carbon molecules would have turned Nazareth into a glowing, glassy crater. There's no crater there, so it didn't happen as told. Do I need to continue?
Well, of course that might explain why there isn't any evidence of a Nazareth existing at that time.
"a glassy, glowing crater" I love it! LOL!!!
I'm going to TRY and post a "small book" about this - I don't know if it's too large to post here or not!