Legal case for the virgin birth (so that ELF will see this)
Achilles achillesz@usa.net
Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:44:29 -0500 (00918211469, 04423981736341@unifour.com)
On 4 Feb 99, at 22:51, Brian Dean wrote:
> TOM:
> The legal/historical method of evidence is a method of formulating
> proof, not a Clintonian play on definitions. It deals with presenting
> historical information in a legal fashion and building a case on
> preponderance of evidence.
>
> BRIDEAN
> In that case, since there is a law student on board, please present
> your "legal" case for the "virgin birth". I will change the topic so
> that our resident "legal expert" can see it and judge the relative
> legal merit of it. Since you have no eyewitnesses though, it seems
> your "legal" approach is going to fall short.
>
> As far as "historical" the only thing you can verify historically is
> that Christians believed the "virgin" birth from the beginning.
Achilles
I seriously doubt even that can be proven. The earliest mention I can think of
would be in the Gospels, which *might* have been written as early as 70 ce.
I seem to recall also reading that Ignatius around the turn of the century
wrote arguments to *pursuade* other Christians that Mary was the mother of
Jesus, if that's correct it would good evidence that not all Christians
believed that at the time. Anyone know the reference I am thinking of, or maybe
a site where I could find it?
/Achilles achillesz@usa.net
All rights reserved.
Random thought for the moment:
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its
creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will
follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize
early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving
underground all heretics.
-- Robert A. Heinlein in Postscript to Revolt in 2100