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.
An article on this - there are many! One of the most compelling evidence I've seen for the LACK of evidence of historicity I've seen!
Here's a paper I read a couple months ago. Looks like it has similar points.
I dont believe there was a Jesus. That is to say a Jesus Christ born the product of an immaculate conception. He is too alike too many different religious gods and deities before him for that all to be coincidence. Also the fact that their is no historical evidence kind of puts a doubt on it. He is in my mind the figment of a second rate authors imagination like almost everything if not everything else in the bible. But at the end of the day it really does not and should not matter to us so much. Why is it that Jesus is given so much importance even by us unbelievers. We know that if their was a guy named Jesus then he was the produce of an out of marriage affair or like another person suggested some heavy petting and a super strong sperm. But my real answer?
I think you're missing the main point that people believe Jesus is Supernatural so the 'impossibility' of the virgin birth is precisely why people who believe in it cherish the story so much - That it is a miracle and not a natural process - That their God is so powerful and wonderful to be able to cause such a seemingly impossible act.
If it was a natural act for women to become pregnant without penetration, then it wouldn't really be a miracle, would it?
Also, how do you connect the story of miracles to him NOT existing? There are many characters in history that had magnificent stories made up about them. It doesn't say anything as to if they actually existed or not.
I think you need to use more rigorous historical evidence and arguments to say he never existed. You can't just say some things were said about him that are seemingly scientifically impossible.