corroboration of virgin birth, history of medical science

to: JarI said:"By the way, I receive in A in logic at the college I took it at."I realize it should be:"By the way, I took a logic course in college and received an A."Tell Asgara to restore my edit function. She is still mad about the success of my Jonah and other strings. She needs to get over this and stop holding a grudge! LOLSincerely,Ken

"By the way, at college I took a course in logic, and I received an 'A'." Would this be the Jonah string where you had almost 70 errors in the one post? Brian.

1-I hope you are not suggesting that simply because you took a logic course you are incapable of error?2-I don't care if you were the TA for Logic 101 at Harvard, your arguments (those to which I responded) are still based on erroneous deduction and fallacy.

It's amazing how much we lose when we don't continue to practice a skill.

Dear Custard:I know that "freethinkers" like to see themselves as somehow as paragons of logic and reason. Yet, if this were true one would expect them to be very mentally stable. I do not think you will like my next new string that I may introduce later. Please see Home | CS Lewis for a sneak preview.I think the Vitz/Mayo Clinic data are telling.If you want to search your library via the NORC social science database perhaps you can find something about atheism and mental health. So far, I would not say the social sciences paint a flattering picture.If you decide to search NORC let me know what you find.I have another string creation that I may introduce regarding what I found about the non-religious via the social science data but it is top secret. If I tell you, I have to kill you.Sincerely,KenSincerely,Ken

I have found many times that teachers, professors, administrators, CEOs, etc., will promote, and even heap great praise and reward upon students and employees who are so friggin' annoying that the promotor simply never wants to ever see or have to deal with the promotee again.Peace. Ab.This message has been edited by Abshalom, 05-28-2004 05:46 PM

kendermeyer All the more stunning since your english clearly sucks.LOL

---

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. "

Since you don't have editing capabilities on this forum, use whatever word processing software you have available to you.Type your thoughts in that format, save it, walk away, and then come back and read it for errors or inconsistencies. Then when it reads correctly you can copy it to the forum. Also there is that wonderful little preview button.I'm sure someone has told you this before, so try it, you might like it. I know we will.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

What data? The clinic paper cited doesn't present any relevant data, it is a review after all, at least I assume it was the review that was being cited rather than the unsuccessful prayer study or the editorial. It is arguable whether atheists are neccessarily not spiritual, I would assume that they aren't religious almost by definition. Since the review addresses religious involvement and the benefits of spiritual support for patients rather than simply professed beliefs as a determining variable in illness it is hard to see how you feel they justify your claims about atheism, similarly looking at the reference given for the 850 studies doesn't help as all that article itself contains is a reference to a book, perhaps if I bought the book I could actually find the data or maybe I'd have to look through all of the original 850 studies before I really knew what the variables the studies addressed were.The vitz paper is simply a pick and choose exercise in anecdotal evidence.TTFN,WK

*rant* It's not string, it's thread! */rant*

Well....This is probably one of the silliest threads I've seen on this forum in some time.A normal length pregnancy evidence for virgin birth?Well, as long as they used oil of hyssop with its 50% anbtibacterials, I guess it must have been a miracle.I'm convinced!

Tell me, kendemyer, do you seriously see this as a convincing reason to believe everything else in the Bible, like say, the Baptist leaping in the womb at coming into contact with the zygote of Jesus? What do you think medical science has to say about that?It is clear that you don't care what science and reason have to say about anything. If it was the case that Lk said Elisabeth was pregnant for 20 years, you would just say it was a miracle. In reality, these stupid little apologetics are not the basis of your 'faith', kendemyer, and anyone with half-a-brain can see right through this idiotic garbage.

Just as in the Jonah thread Ken produced no evidence to support the claim that the Jonahlegend actually did happen, here Ken produces no evidence to corroborate the virgin birth.The simple fact is that even IF we could nail down the length of Elizabeth's pregnancy to a reasonable duration it would not be significant evidence that the story was true. Why ? Because the story is quite likely a fiction and even if it were based on earlier traditions the dates could well be inserted by the author or changed to fit his knowledge - and the author is beleived by many to have been a physician.However the simple truth is that we are not able to nail down the duration of the pregnancy so we cannot deduce anything from it at all.All we are given is that Elizabeth was in the 6th month of her pregnancy when Mary met the Angel (i.e. she had been pregnant for at least 5 months), that Mary went to visit Elizabeth, staying 3 months and some time after that John was born.If we take short times for Mary's travel time and assume that the 3 months are rounded up the time involved could be as little as 8 months - perhaps a mere 32 weeks, if the Jewish calendar is used.If we assume that Mary's stay was rounded down and allow for a week or two between Mary's departure and the birth then a figure of 10 months is not impossible.If the Jewish calendar is meant - and if the story were genuine the original source would almost certainly be Jewish - the duration of Elizabeth's preganancy could be as little 224 days. A full 40 days before the lowest figure contained in the table. Or it could be over 300 days putting it in the highest bracket covered by the table. So an unusually short or an unusually long pregnancy are both possible given the text.

quote:

---

The simple fact is that even IF we could nail down the length of Elizabeth's pregnancy to a reasonable duration it would not be significant evidence that the story was true. Why ? Because the story is quite likely a fiction

---

What is the source of this "fiction" opinion and the evidence supporting the claim ?

Oh I think that it is pretty obvious. why it should be considered to be more likely fiction.Firstly there was about 75 years between the likely date Luke was writing and the supposed events - if we use Luke to try to date Jesus' birth and reject Matthew. If we use Matthew to date Jesus' birth the time is more like 85 years. Add in a major war in the region (the Jewish revolt) and there isn't much hope of accurate and detailed stories like that surviving by the time Luke came to write. Luke's major source is probably Mark's Gospel which does not contain this story.Secondly we have the discrepencies between Luke and Matthwew's nativity account. While there are attempts at harmonisation it is far more likely that at least one of them was largely made up.Thirdly it is not unusual for ancient historians to invent stories about their subject's birth or early childhood. Ancient historians were never objective biographers and the Gospel writers were likely less objective still.Fourthly there is no corroborating evidence. If Jesus actually was related to John the Baptist then why didn't Mark or Matthew mention it ? If there really was a family connection we'd expect just a little more about it. On the other hand it is just the sort of story that would be invented because it supports the picture the Gospel writers put forward of the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus - the baby John "leaps in the womb" at Mary's approach. But it is very questionable that that picture is historically accurate. It is more likely that Jesus started as a follower of the Baptist and what we see in the Gospels is a later "spin" on that.So for all these reasons I say that the story is more likely fiction than fact.