Let me guess, #4?

After all, the first thing you have to accept is that the Big Kahuna, the Prime Mover, the Creator, whoever/whatever said "Lert there be Light!" is also a stinky squalling little baby! After that. Virgin Birth is a snap, IMHO!


Also, I believe it is possible that we may learn that the womb is far more important to the development of the fetus than we now realize, the it's not a simple matter of sperm meets egg that makes a child. In that case, Mary's role becomes even more of a Mystery!

virgin. Am I right? or somebody please explain

It has been Catholic teaching for centuries that Mary remained a virgin after the Incarntion.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Our Lady not of Our Lord. Essentially it says that she received the graces of Baptism at the time of her conception as part of God's preparation for the incarnation (importantly it does not mean that she was conceived by means other than sex between S. Anne and S. Joachim).

The Virgin Birth requires that Our Lady was a virgin when Our Lord was conceived within her - thus He was not the product of normal human sex. It is a secondary (though strictly unconnected) position that she remained a virgin for her entire human life.

is that she remained a virgin till her death. In the new testament there are references to Jesus' brothers. The church translates that as cousins. I don't think so.

[IMG][/IMG]BUMPS

The word that was used back then applied to all women delivering their first baby: All new mothers had virgin births. It simply meant their first child.

The word has no connection to sex at all.

The whole virgin birth idea is a product of the church, not the bible.

So, it comes down to the question of the church's teachings verses the bible: DO you wanna believe the church, or stick with the word in the bible, and translate them accurately?

Your choice.

Hebrew? Aramaic? Greek?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah#Comparison_of_Bible_translations

If there weren't disagreements, there wouldn't be hundreds of different kinds of "christian" churches, as well as endless other kinds of god worship on this planet.

My proof is that there can't be one exact understanding as long as people keep arguing about religion.

How do you deny that?

"Matthew's Gospel was written in about AD 80-90 for Christians who were not of Jewish provenance - that is, Gentiles who had no knowledge of Isaiah's original Hebrew. For them, the passage announced, unambiguously, the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy: the miraculous birth of a divine being. But the prophet himself and readers of his original Hebrew sentence regarded it as a quite specific allusion to the historical circumstances of Isaiah's age - and would have found its mutation in Greek into one of the foundations of Christian doctrine quite baffling." Geza Vermes, discussing Isaiah 7:14 5

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm

Now you're free to post here but, as in your other group, A&A, this is a safe haven group.

As to your question, it's not hard to deny an attack on church history based on an accusation of a mistranslation from an unknown language.

I disagree partially with 4: about the majesterium embodied by the bishops and the pope. That's because I have a serious problem with people in authority who don't practice what they preach; the attitude of "do as I say, not as I do" doesn't fly with me.

When the Church tries to overstep its teaching authority and equates church doctrine with bygone cultural traditions, that's when it's time to defy such authority.
In other words, Christ never gave the Church a license to abuse Her authority and make rules too oppressive and burdensome for the faithful to follow, such as imposing the pain of mortal sin for acts Jesus Himself would never condemn.