Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus/Archive 3

message: Excuse me for stating the obvious, but shouldn't we point out that this whole thing is impossible? -- Tarquin 18:05 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
: The article Virgin birth (arguments) appears to give you a soap-box for doing exactly that.  Have fun. Mkmcconn
I don't want a soapbox, I want an NPOV article. Splitting off an "argument" page is not a good idea. For that matter, it appears to be mostly textual analysis. This article needs to say that this is biologically impossible (or, since I am not a biologist, under what extreme circumstances & what freak conditions it could be possible) -- Tarquin 18:21 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
:Arguably, all miracles are "impossible" in natural terms.  That is indeed the whole point.  I think the article is NPOV in that it clearly locates all of this as a Christian (and to lesser degree Muslim) belief.  The article very clearly explains under what extrme and freak conditions this could happen -- it would take divine intervention! Slrubenstein
This article is quite happy to say "Mary, however, unlike Christ, was conceived in the ordinary way" -- ie: Catholics are wrong. NPOV requires us to say: they're all wrong -- it's scientifically impossible. -- Tarquin 18:35 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
: This is what the Catholics teach that Mary was conceived in an ordinary way.i.e. she had a human father as well as a human mother., but without the stain of original sin: as the article says.    You have an amusing idea of NPOV. Mkmcconn
:Tarquin, with all due respect, bow out of this one gracefully.  Of course it is scientifically impossible, that's the point -- there are people who believe that "scientifically" impossible things are possible, but not "scientifically."  Your point is an utter non-point.  You -- and I, I hasten to add -- believe that if something is scientifically impossible it is simply impossible.  But this is our point of view; it is not NPOV Slrubenstein
*sigh* -- Tarquin 18:56 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
: Yes, philosophical naturalism is a point of view. It occurs to me that it's impossible to scientifically prove that philosophical naturalism is correct without engaging in a circular argument. Kind of like trying to prove sola scriptura using only the Bible. ;-)  Wesley 20:27 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
NPOV still requires us to state the opinion that virgin birth per se is not medically possible -- or if it is, how it is. Anything less is not NPOV -- Tarquin 18:09, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the addition of this sentence satisfy your NPOV concerns? This is also understood to be a miracle, something not possible without divine intervention.   Wesley 18:09, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I think it does. Nice work! -- Tarquin 20:49, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: John Chrysostom discusses this at length in his Homilies on Matthew, especially in Homily II sections 7 and 8. See http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-08.htm#TopOfPage. In brief, he shows that Joseph and Mary were in all probability *both* descendants of David, since it was the custom for Israelites to marry within their tribe and clan, and Matthew makes a point of saying that Joseph was a law-abiding, God-fearing man. Matthew also talks about God sending Gabriel to talk to Mary, and in that place calls her a descendant of David. Joseph's lineage is traced because it was the Jewish custom to trace lineage through the males. Wesley 16:50, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't we point out that this whole thing is impossible

message: # add section headers to this talk page?
# the article, especially the "alleged late appearance" section, reads like a discussion.  as if someone wrote a sentence, someone else rebutted it in the next sentence, and vice versa (and this is probably what actually happened).  can it be broken into labeled sections that flow together better?
# "In past two millennia there has been considerable controversy among Christians and their opponents"
#: and their opponents???
# "Judaism has only one deity, who is male"
#: is that true?  (some) christians are taught that "He" is actually sexless.
# The section about the devil predicting the future raises a good point about "apologetics" or "proving religious beliefs" (i don't know the right word) and should point to an article about it.  in other words, if you start your philosophizing from the perspective that there is no god or supernatural and that the books of the bible are simply stories copied from other stories, the idea that a supernatural devil could predict the future (or borrow from a supernatural prophet) and incorporate it into a past manuscript for purposes of manipulating future doubters is absurd.  if, however, you start from the perspective that there is a god and supernatural, and try to work your way backwards proving what you already believe from the manuscripts, then it becomes a perfectly sensible argument.  sort of a tautological thing.  - Omegatron 00:20, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
: Your last point is certainly a good one. I would point out though that the existence of a devil or supernatural is not entirely necessary to the argument being made. If we remove the supernatural elements, we're still left with the claim that some Greek, Egyptian and other stories were partially derived from earlier Hebrew stories or prophecies. Therefore, the argument goes, similarities between Christian and Greek/Egyptian/etc. stories are not because they derived from those stories, but because both are based on a common set of earlier Hebrew writings. Claiming that some of the copying was inspired by Satan just adds flair. :-) Wesley 03:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  some cleaning up 

message: I have trouble understanding this quote:
Skeptics also argue that if other writers had mentioned the virgin birth in the New Testament, it would be certain that they believed in it. They did not mention it, therefore it cannot be certain that they believed in it. But this commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
The argument as phrased above most definitely does not strike me as a logical fallacy.
Basically, as presented above, the sceptics claim "mentioning the virgin birth means the author certainly believed in it, therefore not mentioning the virgin birth means we can't conclude with any certainty whether the author believed in it or not, based on this point alone", which is a valid logical conclusion.
Had they clamed "mentioning the virgin birth means the author certainly believed in it, therefore not mentioning the virgin birth means that the author certainly did not believe in it", now that would definitely be commiting the logical fallacy denying the antecedent.
So, either the sceptics have not commited a logical fallacy on this point, or they indeed have commited a fallacy but their argument is being misrepresented here. Please clarify this paragraph.
Most importantly, from an academic standpoint, a straightforward analysis of the Greek texts shows that parthenos did not necessarily mean virgin before the second century ce. An introductory discussion of the issues involved can be found here: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/browse_thread/thread/f847b6dfc0e3ff01/5d32c3e537182156?q=parthenos+lembo&rnum=2&hl=en#5d32c3e537182156
--Grnch 11:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denying the antecedent? 

message: Hi
I heard I don't know where a theory that the story of the Virgin Birth could be linked to utmost-exceptional (and, needless to say, accidental) case of parthenogenesis in human being.
Did someone heard about human parthenogenesis? I would not have even considered so before I stumbled upon human hermaphrodism…
Reply to David Latapie 21:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human parthenogenesis? 

message: From :
*The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings.
*In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.
*A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.
*In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death.
*The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus."
*In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. An alternate myth is that he emerged from a rock.
*Also in Persia, Zoroaster was also born of a virgin.
*In India, there are two main stories of the birth of Krishna, one of the incarnations of Vishnu, and the second person within the Hindu Trinity. In one story, Krishna was said to have been born to his mother Devaki while she was still a virgin. In the other, he had a normal conception and birth.
*Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece.
*Many mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who share a number of factors. All were believed to have:
**been male.
**lived in pre-Christian times.
**had a god for a father.
**human virgin for a mother.
**had their birth announced by a heavenly display.
**had their birth announced by celestial music.
**been born about DEC-25.
**had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant
**met with a violent death.
**rose again from the dead.
Some have argued that the Virgin Birth is a Christian borrowing from paganism. The impregnation of mortal women by gods is common in pagan mythology WAS 4.250 16:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Borrowing from Paganism

message: I think such a move would help to clarify the difference between the Immaculate Conception and the conception of Jesus in the Christian faith. Rather than having Miraculous Conception redirect here, Virgin Birth could redirect to Miraculous Conception.  Granted, I am not a Catholic, and prehaps it would be best for a group of Catholics to explain which term is best used.  Citizen Premier 02:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wouldn't this best be moved to Miraculous Conception? 

message: The title seems to be incorrect, since also Muslims (and Bahais and others?) belive in his virgin birth. Lets rename it to on of this:
#Virgin birth of Jesus
#Reported virgin birth of Jesus
#Virgin Birth of Jesus (Christian doctrine, Muslim and Bahai Belief)
I vote for #1 or #2--Striver 19:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: "Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary lived all her life without sin, beginning from her conception. It refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus's" - now that ive figured out the "differences" does it mean that protestants believe that mary was sinful?
Let me, if I may, give you some perspective from someone who is not a Catholic nor a Protestant, but a Baptist.  You are correct on your understanding of the term Immaculate Conception being a reference to Mary, and not the Jesus Christ.  This is a Catholic teaching that cannot be supported by scripture.  The New Testament does say this "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." [Luke 1:46] This statement to me answers the question you asked: was Mary sinful, or in her words, was she a sinner?  If she was not a sinner, she would have no need of a Saviour.  "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God [Romans 3:23]
The Virgin Birth is also the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14.  The word in Hebrew literally means veiled virgin or veiled lass.  In that time, the custom was to have a woman who was engaged wear a veil until she was married [in our culture today the man gives and engagement ring].  
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together [were intimate sexually], she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.  Then Joseph, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away [which under the law meant stoning] privily."
Lastly, to what I believe was your first point, there was no sexual intimacy or act required for God to cause Mary to conceive, all He had to do was speak the word, and it was done.  What God asked on Mary's part was that she believe.  
The Virgin Birth was and is necessary for the true Christian faith.  Without this, God would have to perform yet another miracle to become flesh. This was the means my which He would become flesh and fulfill the law of the Kinsman Redeemer and the prophecy of Leviticus 17:11 and many others.
Con10ding4tfaith 03:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, Protestants do believe that Mary was sinful. I don't have any links to articles right now by Protestants that state that, but doing a quick Google search reveals many articles that would indicate that. Joshuagross 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "For all have sinned and fallen short" would include Mary in protestant theology. Edison 06:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sinless? 

message: :Skeptics also argue that if other writers had mentioned the virgin birth in the New Testament, it would be certain that they believed in it. They did not mention it, therefore it cannot be certain that they believed in it.
Compare: If I live in San Francisco, I live in California.  I do not live in San Francisco, therefore I don't live in California.  Grover cleveland 17:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... I vote to keep it out. Joshuagross 22:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison by GC is not apt. An apt comparison would be something like: "If I live in San Fraancisco, I live in California. I do not live in San Francisco, therefore it cannot be certain I live in California." Which is not a logical fallacy at all. –RHolton≡– 18:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logical fallacy removed

message: I've made this section much clearer.  I think that 66.217.126.211's response was based on a misunderstanding of the point of the paragraph about the discrepancies in Matthew and Luke (totally my fault as the original was not clear at all).  I've put his/her material here:  
:Few of these so-called discrepancies are even apparently contradictory, but have been interpreted by Biblical scholars as examples of complementarity.  It is not unheard of for two authors on similar subjects to have different emphases for their works.  The fact of the virgin birth and the location of Bethlehem can be explained by the fact that both Matthew and Luke aimed to show that Jesus fulfilled the same prophecies from scripture.  Its duplication in these two works shows that, unlike some of the other details, the Virgin Birth was felt to be important doctrinally to both authors.  Nevertheless, according to some scholars, the "double attestation" of Matthew and Luke is of dubious value in corroborating the virgin birth.
You make a good point, that the "Synoptic" Gospels were not so synoptic (i.e. they agreed on the same things) in their written material of Jesus's followers and his mission.--Peter bergquist 02:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancies in Matthew/Luke (Double attestation critique)

message: There is a lot of speculation on the "virgin" birth of Jesus.
I think it is important that one should define virgin (i.e. define it in the terms of the time period)
The term "virgin" in todays terms is used to describe someone who hasn't had sexual intercourse.  However it is very possible it could mean that her (Mary's) marriage with Joseph was not complete or finished in its tradition of a period of time that had to pass for the marriage to be completed (according the Jewish wedding ceremonies of the time).  This of course meant that Jesus was a bastard son, even if God was his father (Christian belief), he had no lawful father at his birth.  He was born before Joseph and Mary were officially married.  This is of course is highly debated, however the Biblical Sea Scrolls have given new light on the history of Jesus and his teachings.  It is hard to follow the "Synoptic" Gospels, when they actually disagreed on issues.  Scholars had to look elsewhere for evidence, the Sea Scrolls were the tool.  I hope this view will inspire you to look up more about Jesus's history.  If you want to know where I got most of my information i suggest reading The Bloodlines of Christ by Laurance Gardner.  It is an excellent book and a great read for historians, theologists, and those of us who dig to the bottom of things.
Life is too precious to waste your time thinking other's thoughts, think for yourself.  Above all, resist the stream of normality and common belief.
--An Existential Thinker 02:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mis-comprehensions? (it's a joke) 

message: Was Jesus more of a poitical leader or a religious one?  That is my question.  Certainly, his actions deemed him a heretic by the Roman empire.  However, were his ambtions political or religious?  He was persecuted and ultimately crucified by the Roman government.  It is very possible his defience of Roman occupancy in Israel (and in Jerusalem) and his misson to restore a rightful ruler (as through the bloodlines of David) to his people was a direct threat to the Occupancy.  Was It?  I would like to know what others have to say about this and what information they could give me, since I am in need of it.  Your contribtuions would be helpful.  Thanks.--Existential Thinker 19:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus came to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. It wasn't a political goal though, he was following what God the Father told him through the Bible. Joshuagross 13:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow!  It might be enlightening to know that the Bible was written about 4 centuries later then the death of Jesus.  I thought you might like to know that.--Existential Thinker 19:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether or not Jesus had a political agenda seems irrelevant to this article. It might be more appropriate for Jesus, Messiah, or any of several related articles that actually discuss his ambitions. This article doesn't discuss that though, one way or the other. Wesley 15:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right I meant to post it somewhere else, ill move it.--Existential Thinker 19:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His political agenda?<Wrong section, where shouold I move it?> 

message: I've removed the following paragraph from the article:
:The significance of the Virgin Birth is that the sin nature is passed on by the man, not the woman ( and ); since a human man was never involved (God the Father is the father of Jesus), Jesus was born without a sin nature and was thus perfect, paving the way for him to pay for all sins on the cross. According to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Mary was also born "without stain of original sin".
I don't think the aricle should attempt to say what the "significance" if the Virgin Birth is; that's drawing conclusions. Perhaps it could say, "according to so and so, the significance of the Virgin Birth is...", but until such a source is provided, it should be removed. It also seems to me to be poor reasoning, especially if one takes into account the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, in which case any original sin passed on via the woman would not be passed on by Mary. However, I think a whole lot of protestant theologians  hold to the Virgin Birth but reject the Immaculate Conception...and would also reject the idea that original sin is only passed on by the male parent. To me, the line of reasoning implied in the discussion of which sex passes on Original Sin represents a sort of pseudo-naturalistic understanding sin which does not mesh well with any theology that accepts the Virgin Birth.–RHolton≡– 11:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At first I was opposed to your edit, but then after reading your explanation, I tend to agree with it. (Up to the point where you discuss the quality of the argument -- regardless of the quality of the argument, the doctrinal significance would exist or not exist.  The protestants might not believe in immaculate conceptions -- or some might -- but they tend to believe that the scriptures MUST be believed as written per sola scriptura).  I do not think that deletion was the answer, but rather a judicious edit.  --64.178.145.150 12:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rholton is right about not editorializing about the Virgin Birth's significance unless we attribute it somewhere. The Orthodox Christians also reject the Immaculate Conception, and would view the significance differently, for example. Wesley 06:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a questionable paragraph 

message: I am changing this passage:
In the past two millennia, there has been considerable controversy among Christians and their opponents about the plain translation and the precise meaning of a small section of Isaiah. For many scholars, the crux of the matter is the translation of the word : עלמה, `almah which has been translated as young woman and as virgin.
to remove the remark about "Christians and their opponents." Some persons who disagree with the traditional version of this verse are Christians, and one can disbelieve in the Virgin Birth without being an opponent of Christianity.
Fabulous Creature 20:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed remark about 'Christians and their opponents" in Isaiah discussion 

message: This article is argumentative, doesn't cite sources, has poor formatting, has too many blockquotes, and a dozen of other issues. Tagged clean up. --Andrew c 21:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: From the article:
"According to Origen and Tertullian, the Christian doctrine of the Virgin birth met with lively opposition and mockery from pagan groups. This testimony would seem to discount the suggestion of those modern revisionists who have posited that the pagan religions had a similar or identical tradition."
This really doesn't make sense, as "paganism" is a generic term that in this case can be applied to, basically, any religion not sharing the tenets of either Judaism or Christianity, so it is obvious we are not talking about the same thing. Roman and Greek "paganism" clealy did not see pure parthenogenesis (intercourse with Gods aside) as a possibility, whereas some semitic religions did.201.37.71.146 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  subtle dishonesty or confusion? 

message: This is a Warning of impending removal/modification of sentence on Holy Spirit in Incarnation/Virgin Birth.
The last sentence of the first paragraph of the general section of the main article says:
::Instead, the Incarnation (not the Immaculate Conception -- see below) took place when the Holy Spirit "overshadowed" Mary.
I believe it is highly misleading and even obfuscating, because, by its initial “instead”, it conveys the impression that Holy Spirit was not part of the Virgin Birth itself, but only of the “Incarnation”, which is therefore made to appear as something separate and different. This is contrary to the proper Christian understanding, as spelt by the Apostles’ Creed, which says: 
::“He [Jesus] was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.”
Therefore, unless someone argues convincingly against the above, I am going to remove it (or modify it drastically). 
Miguel de Servet 16:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incarnation vs. Virgin Birth: ambiguous sentence on the role of the Holy Spirit