Just because legends, fairy tales and pagan traditions have been layered upon these basic facts does not mean that the basic facts are now themselves fairy tales.
But... I have no problem with these things appearing on a quiz next to questions about the Grinch and Santa Claus. Up until someone comes along and starts insisting that their fairy tales are historical fact.
Additionally, you do actually need to provide a basis for why you think the Magi story is myth. Instead of just stating it without any logical context.
Anyway, you're gonna have a problem with insisting that these things are 'fairy tales' since a lot of people are going to be inclined to disagree. Time and time again you'll come and comment snarkily on a quiz to point out how obviously flawed it (or its comments) is, and yet you rarely seem to ever give an actual basis for why you think this. A conclusion is not an argument.
My logical context for believing the Magi story is a myth is all of documented and recorded human history and everything that we have come to understand as myth. If you want a more detailed explanation of how we know stories are myths, look it up yourself this is a comments section of a trivia website not my doctoral thesis.
People are free to disagree with whatever factual statements they want as long as they're okay with being wrong.
The burden of proof is on you to prove these fantastical stories, not on non-believers to disprove them
And I've no idea what your whole last paragraph was about - argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy and Kal wasn't complaining that the quiz is flawed
The scientific community has latched onto this because it gives them a way to explain away the idea of a creator.
Evolution is well supported by a huge amount of scientific evidence which you can easily Google yourself if you would care to take your head out of the sand
It's not known where Jesus was born. If he was a real man, the Nativity story was not recorded until many decades after he was born. There are no records of his life. Popular Christian tradition holds that he was born in Bethlehem. However, there is speculation that he was born in Nazareth as he is identified in Mark as Jesus the Nazorean. Nazorean is similar to the title Nazarene, meaning someone from Nazareth.
Critics of this theory point out that in the original Greek Nazorean and Nazarene are distinct terms, and also that there is evidence Nazareth was uninhabited during the 1st century, so it's doubtful there were any practicing carpenters starting families there at the time. Nobody knows from whence a Nazorean would come. Probably whatever small Palestinian village Jesus was said to be from has been lost forever to history.
Additionally, 'there are no records of his life'? There are four gospels, about twenty other books in the Bible that reference him as a real historical figure, and a number of non-Christian materials from around the time of his life. Though expecting records for a...
religious texts are not historical records. There are precisely zero non-Biblical accounts of Jesus. Zero. None. Nada. Zilch. And yes expecting documented evidence for a person who wasn't real is unreasonable, that's true. Not having any such documentation is what we would expect in the event of a person not being real.
It remains the popular scholarly consensus that Jesus was in fact a flesh and blood man (even if obviously the Gospels are not accurate). It's my personal opinion that Jesus was a real person. I've stated both things many times. You are obviously too emotionally invested in this topic to even hear what I'm saying about it.
I could write that. It would reflect my experience. It doesn't count as evidence that Muhammad existed in the 500s, or that Abraham visited Mecca. It's only evidence that Muslims exist today, along with an account of what those Muslims believe and what I was told when I was in Mecca.
I was responding directly to sumguy's post - "Historically speaking, it was likely a caravan..."
This bit of minutiae is something I'm a proponent of, making more of it than justified, I know. I maintain the song is a running list of what the True Love had already given plus the new gift of the day. By my view there were not 12 partridges in pear trees given over 12 days but just the one, and it just gets rehashed 11 times.
Actually, thinking about it, from memory your comments seem to indicate that you tend to follow the good messages (eg ‘love your neighbour’) and are willing to ignore the parts which you don’t think send a good message so I guess you’re not a literalist?
Christus est natus
Ex Maria Virginae