Do you believe in the Virgin Birth?

It was suggested by a mod that was nice and got back to me about the previous related thread that this would be a more appropriate way to phrase the question.

I am still interested in how the event is viewed here.

So, do you believe in the Virgin Birth?

but I tried to get my mom to when I found out I was pregnant before I got married;)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's a double standard of biblical proportions.

so his virginity is irrelevant. The claim is that Jesus's conception was a miracle. Roman Catholics go further and say that Mary was 'immaculately conceived', which means she didn't inherit 'original sin' from her parents, unlike the rest of us poor peasants. I presume this was because they decided that Jesus wasn't allowed to come into contact with a sinner, even in the womb.

The Christian Church never believed such a thing for the first 1000 years or so.

Rome created this one out of thin air after the split from the rest of Christendom in the 11th century. It's added a load of new ones since then. Papal infallibility, purgatory, universal jurisdiction...the list is long.

:hi:

coming along. :)

:yourock:

:eyes:

A virgin birth was the first child of ANY woman.

Only a misreading and a whole lot of borrowing from Mithras, Zoroaster, Hercules and a whole lot of other myths left us with the silly Jesus myth.

He was his mother's first child. That's what it means.

Very interesting.

Pondering that. Semms quite possible.

:freak:(me pondering away)

supernatural crap. Most of then don't have a clue that they are really worshiping the pagan gods on your short list there.

The super human feats of Jesus is what I have a hard time with. Not his words.

"Love one another as I have love you"

'Tis one virtue that has never caught on.

There is another virtue that very few possess. I'll let you guess what it is. The word has 19 letters. It begin with an "S" and ends with an "S", 'tis no trick. If ya can't figure it out PM me.

that means her marriage to Joseph was never consummated. That means they were not really officially married. So that would mean Jesus was born out of wedlock. That can't be acceptable to the fundies.

Am I missing something here?

way of the immaculate conception. Elders asked Joseph to marry Mary for appearances. Joseph was apparently a very trusting fellow.

needed to be born without original sin in order to give birth to the Savior (look it up, you'll see!)

The Immaculate Conception is a Catholic doctrine that asserts that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was preserved by God from the stain of original sin at the time of her own conception.

Great sig line by the way!

Isaiah 7:14
This verse has also seen a great deal of discussion in the history of interpretation. The text of the verse from the NET Bible is as follows:

Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

The most visible issue surrounding this verse is the translation of the Hebrew word hm*l=u^ ( Jalmah). The NET Bible uses the phrase “young woman,” while many translations use the word “virgin.” The arguments center upon two main points: the actual meaning of the term as it is used in Hebrew, and the use of this verse in the New Testament. There is a great deal of debate about the actual meaning of the Hebrew word. However, in the New Testament when this verse is cited in Matthew 1:23 the Greek word parqevno" (parthenos) is used, and this word can mean nothing but “virgin.” Therefore, many people see Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy about the virgin birth with Matthew 1:23 serving as a “divine commentary” on the Isaiah passage which establishes its meaning. The interplay of these issues makes a resolution quite complex. It is the opinion of the translators and editors that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 means “young woman” and actually carries no connotations of sexual experience, so the grammatical context of the verse in the Old Testament is in our opinion fairly straightforward.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=9

You have to go back to the original text and translate straight to english, otherwise it's like that game where one person says something and by the time it gets around the circle it's something completely different.

Truth is a flexible commodity. :)

(And, believe it or not, you're not the target. :) )

Newspeak vocabulary: artsem.

instead of GD --

i'm alergic to religious superstition.

Current event is X-mas, or Z-mas if you prefer, all the hoopla about what to call this time of yr, etc. This is a good question, see how people believe, especially if asked respectfully, and answered respectfully. We'll see how long that lasts.

In fact, posting purely religious threads in GD is not allowed.

wonder if it fits GD under "current affairs", other times I'd agree and ask it to get moved. Now I'm ambivalent. peace and happy whatever!

It's meaning during time when the bible was translated, virgin meant on her own not belonging to father or any other man.

It had nothing to do with sexual history, purity, etc. Simply it meant she was her own woman. On that account, I'd say yes, she was. Was the spirit of god in her? Depending on definition, again, I'd say yes since god is in us all and all of us are god ("god" meaning that spirit bit that is in us all and we are all part of).

Did she not have sex but spontaneously got pregnant? While it is possible, it is extremely unlikely. It's possible I will spontaneously combust, but I don't have fire insurance or an extinguisher on hand at all times.

" i never could figure out how they knew anything about my parents sex life, you know,i think they just made this up."

in early days it was a cultural praise to someone to say he was born of a virgin, herding nomadic cultures are all weird about women and sex.. it didn't mean actual virgin.. but the WORD IS THE WORD the is the Problem with Modernism.. no faith in a printed WORD.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Someone estimated that 80% of DUers are atheists, and I myself am an agnostic (who retains membership in the Episcopal church). Posts like this, IMO, serve only to allow atheists here to toot their superior horns, their version of "holier-than-thou," and to further distance this community of liberals from the majority of Americans, doing us no good politically -- and politics, I thought, was the reason we were here at DU.

This poll poses a question that, under DU rules, belongs in the Religion and Theology forum.

From what I remember of the occasional poll (which are, of course, self-selecting, and so very unreliable), the combined atheist/agnostic figure was about 50%. 80% is way higher than the figures you see for American Democratic voters; I think it's higher than the general population figure for almost any country in the world.

And I think 80% is indeed much, much higher than that of any voter group, or population. I think from man's beginnings, there has been a need to explain the unexplainable, and to seek comfort in belief.

I wonder, do people tend to accept miraculous claims in the distant past more so than similar claims made contemporaneously? Does time dilute one's need for evidence, lessen one's rational interpretation of an event?

I ask you, take ANY christian couple, have their young innocent daughter offer the explanation that she is still a virgin but carrying child, and see what kind of a reaction you get. Why not believe? Perhaps it is the second coming. He is coming back isn't he? Where is baby jesus II going to gestate, in a box? The whole virgin birth thing was good in part I, I would expect to see the same plot line in part II. I doubt you will find many religious folks accepting of the virgin birth explanation, so why accept it in the bible?

Walking on water, talking burning bushes, endless loaves and fishes, rise from the dead, cure the leprosy, smite the, well you know the story. You don't see these things today, so why do people believe these things occurred two thousand years ago?

:evilfrown:

SHAKEN CREEDS: The Virgin Birth Doctrine By Jocelyn Rhys - Published 1922
THE VIRGIN BIRTH STORY
OTHER STORIES OF VIRGIN BIRTHS

It may be thought that the story of a virgin birth is too wonderful to have been invented merely to show that a misunderstood prophecy had been fulfilled, and that so miraculous a doctrine could not, without some basis of fact, suddenly be created by any brain, however fertile. But a study of ancient literature discloses the fact that myths of virgin births were part of many if not of all the surrounding pagan religions in the place where, and at the time when, Christianity arose.

"The gods have lived on earth in the likeness of men" was a common saying among ancient pagans, and supernatural events were believed in as explanations of the god's arrival upon earth in human guise.

About two thousand years before the Christian era Mut-em-ua, the virgin Queen of Egypt, was said to have given birth to the Pharaoh Amenkept (or Amenophis) III, who built the temple of Luxor, on the walls of which were represented:-

1. The Annunciation: the god Taht announcing to the virgin Queen that she is about to become a mother.

2. The Immaculate Conception: the god Kneph (the Holy Spirit) mystically impregnating the virgin by holding a cross, the symbol of life, to her mouth.

3. The Birth of the Man-god.

4. The Adoration of the newly born infant by gods and men, including three kings (or Magi ?), who are offering him gifts. In this sculpture the cross again appears as a symbol.

More here: http://englishatheist.org/indexd.shtml