RE: Virgin Mary, Ark of the Covenant
March 25, 2014 at 12:48 am
(This post was last modified: March 25, 2014 at 12:49 am by Bucky Ball.)
(March 25, 2014 at 12:39 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: Objections against the validity of the virgin birth are based mostly on preconceived notions - in the main, that the miraculous is impossible. There is no reason, other than pre-conceived notions, to reject it as historical; and to be fair, no reason other than ones own perceptions to accept it as such.
No point in arguing what you can't prove, and no, the early Church Father's and no significant communion of early Christians believed the Virgin Birth as is clearly defined in the Bible, was a mistranslation.
*As if* you can prove ONE thing about your deity. LOL. You of all people should not be talking about "arguing what you can't prove".
1. Asserting something about anything with no reference is crap, and YOU have provided NOT ONE external historical reference for anything you have claimed. What they "believed" it totally irrelevant.
2. The early "Church Fathers" were liars, and they admitted it.
Admitted, purposeful deception in the early Christian Church by "Church Fathers"
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. - Joseph Campbell 
Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist
Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist
