Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus/Archive 4

message: I have to say, this is one of the most biased articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia, if not the most.  Just in an hour I pointed out a lot of things from the Christian view and gave alternative links, but this page continually says Christian apologists say some things without ever actually presenting the Christian view.  All over the place it says generalities about Christians and what they believe along with other things without ever citing sources.  I've marked those spots but obviously this is all pretty badly researched.  There's not nearly enough sources here, and I'll try to add more with time.
--Jzyehoshua 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could help to create an article on virgin birth in general, if you think there is enough material. This article has always been mainly about the conception and birth of Jesus, which a lot has been written about. I suggested it should be renamed with its present name, as more accurate. There is also an article on miraculous birth, which is not in a very good state. Perhaps you might like to improve that. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: certainly I have no problem with this articles existance, just with the redirect. I'll add this to my to do list. Thanx--Matt D (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I whipped up a disambig page at virgin birth. I think it's my first disambig page, so someone might want to check me. Leadwind (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should do the job. Thanks.--Matt D 23:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one problem with this is how you translate Roman 1:1-4 (περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ κατὰ σάρκα)  The word "σπέρματος" is more correctly translated 'seed' (as it is in the KJV) and in the 1st century CE a woman was regarded as the 'soil' into which a man planted his seed. In fact, if you put in σπέρματος into yahoo bablefish it will produce 'sperm' as the English translation and if you put the raw word in you not only get a reference to Romans 1:1-4 but several health articles regarding semen.   The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church states as far as Paul is concerned there is "No divine origin here, no miraculous birth, no virgin mother." The Religious Tolerance points out there were several places Paul could have been clear regarding a virgin birth and yet was not.  Are the translators here being honest with us or they trying to shove preset views on the translations?--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Biased 

message: first of all, who is to say that she was actually a virgin? just because a book written 2007 years ago, the alleged "holy book" of all time, says it does? Who wrote the bible? corrupt men with bias opinions about the whole jesus incident. and who is holy enough to edit out all testements, paganists or christains? how do we know that the whole idea of religion is not some form of control set up by a group of wise men in order to create a standard of living for all beings? how do we know that the ruling church was not created and actually has no power on earth except what power the people feed it? religion is an idea, a utopia, much like heaven and hell. why do you think that everything has an equal and opposite? because god wanted it to be that way? absolutely not.. it is mother nature's way of balancing things out, making sure that no one thing would take over another. man created god as a gateway to create a rule over earth, a way to make everyone behave in the fear of god.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.27.115.30 (talk • contribs).
What you have written here is called an opinion.  If you are critical of the subject of a virgin birth, as a whole, then you should have addressed it.  Instead, you express an opinion about God.  You explain the concept of God as a supream being, as is the view of the majority of the human race,  with your opinion that God was created by man as a way to keep other men in line?  Interesting hypothesis. Yet, you list nothing in the way of facts or links to those facts.  For that matter, you did not sign your opinion so as to make your self available to defend your opinion?
Your "opinion" as well as my opinion of your opinion don't have any place in this argument.  But then that's why they are called opinions. S.Lefebvre
don't feed the trolls... it reads like a drunk post.  you only have to get 2 sentences into it, to realize that it was not a well thought argument.  ie, the bible being written 2007 years ago.  12.184.156.2 01:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: anon's comment

message: The concept of a "Virgin Birth" is found throughout the religions of the world, and is not an exclusive Christian doctrine; to present it as such serves as a great disservice to our readers. —Viriditas | Talk 02:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting. Do you have a source for these ideas? Itsmejudith 08:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  These are no ideas, these are facts. Virgin birth is a common religious myth and there are hundreds if not thousands accounts of it worldwide. The only places this myth does not appear are Judaism and in Japan. Totally horrible article, but no use editing against such bigotry as a "Series about Jesus" Viandehachée 19:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like the article, please improve it with sourced material. If there are hundreds of thousands of accounts - we only need a few! Itsmejudith 21:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, you are such a bigoted religious believer that you manage to grotesquely misquote what I said right in the next sentence! You could simply check the other language editions of WP, the Germans for ex. have at least a concise summary of global "virgin birth" myths. I also believe that a "Series about Jesus" is a gross violation of WP policy, so I don't see a reason to support this kind of religious propaganda / proselytizing at all. Viande hachée 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bigoted religious believer, no mate, not me mate. I was only trying to be encouraging. Sorry for trying. No, because I assume good faith, I'll carry on. I don't read German well enough to do what you ask, but no problem. You can ask the translation service to translate the German bit for us. And what policy is a series about Jesus a violation of? There's a series about Muhammad, a series about Marxism. The point is to inform people, whatever their point of view or ours. By the way, I was the editor who moved the mention of non-Christian accounts into the lead. Itsmejudith 17:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, please. This is not the place for discussions about whether the Christian beliefs are true or not. All we need to do is describe what the concept of the virgin birth is. No-one is interested in whether you, Borsey, are convinced or not. Itsmejudith 22:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just wanted to point out that the phrase ".Behold, a virgin shall conceive,..." could simply mean that the woman in question WAS a virgin, right up until copulation and conception. Just a thought.  (Ohnhai, 11:59pm  6/10/2007)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.72.65 (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Up until conception?  In any case, interpretation of Is 7:14 is secondary in relation to what is stated in Mt and Lk.  Lima 14:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmmmmmmm... the Virgin Birth story does too appear in Japan ^__^  Buddha's mommy, Maya, is a Virgin :D (of course, there's some debate about this among us Buddhists, but I was raised to think that)... and, about the above comment regarding regular intercourse with a virgin resulting in conception, I don't see what kind of a "sign" that would be... popping a girl's cherry and her consequent pregnancy isn't really a sign at all... lol... it might've happened to my mom!  that wouldn't make her special or make my older sister a "sign" :D... i also don't get how a young woman conceiving (especially in that time period!) would be a sign... just my own thoughts on this controversial subject ^__^  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.9.1 (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virgin Birth 

message: I think perhaps this page would be better served if its title were changed to Virgin Birth (Christianity). The single reference to virgin birth outside of Christian Mythology completely devolves into a discussion of whether or not pagans influenced this Christian Myth. If this page isn't going to reflect the virgin birth concept in a fair an unbiased manner, then it should indicate the context of this article clearly, in the title. Cheers. webbj74 23:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or it could be entitled Virgin Birth of Jesus and then the Islamic belief in this could be noted. Itsmejudith 07:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this last suggestion, which would clearly indicate what the article is really about: a specific virgin birth, not virgin birth generically even within one belief system. Lima 08:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Virgin Birth of Jesus comply with Wikipedia standards better than, say, Virgin Birth (Jesus of Nazareth)? Thanks for the replies, have people working on the Christianity Portal had a chance to respond yet? webbj74 17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it quite certainly does comply better, especially since the article on Jesus of Nazareth is titled Jesus.  Lima 18:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless some objection is raised within the next few days, I think it is time to make Itsmejudith's proposed change of title to "Virgin Birth of Jesus".  Lima 07:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's just over a full week since Itsmejudith proposed the change.  Nobody has objected.  Here goes.  Lima 12:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Change Title 

message: The current text of the article is very deficient in its understanding of the excellent quote under Antecedents.
The quote gives the very strong argument that Ugaritic provides evidence that Isaiah's alamah would naturally raise an association with betulah; and if this is so, it would be a point likely known well via oral traditions of interpretation and explain the NT comfort with the rendering parthenos.
The quote provides excellent evidence that those who have claimed that parthenos over-translated alamah, are on slippery ground. Ugaritic is independent confirmation that alamah was considered parallel to betulah in NW Semitic dialects. How do we know it is independent ... because it's older than Genesis claims to be!
How is the age of the Ugaritic relevant to the argument in the quote? By demonstrating independence! What is before cannot depend on what is later. alamah || betulah cannot be a Jewish and or Christian "conspiracy" because this parallel existed before Abraham was born!
The suggestion made in the Wiki commentary, that the propositional content of Old or New Testament is simply passing on a preceding idea is mentioned nowhere in the quote. It is unsourced POV, irrelevant to the quote that introduces it.
It's not surprising the writer makes no such suggestion, because is a very unlikely speculation. The Ugaritic has only one word in common with Isaiah, and one translated word in common with the NT. One word in common does not literary dependence make!
Now, if you want examples of ancient near eastern texts that are incorporated holus bolus (a technical term in secondary school playgrounds, meaning in toto), the final chapters of Proverbs actually cite their non-Israelite sources!
Other places in the Bible quote ancient sources, modify them or allude to them. It's no secret. However, if Wiki wishes to make comparisons between biblical and extra-biblical literature, it needs to be providing sourced analysis of differences as well as similarities, and sourced analysis of the significance of both kinds of relationship. Why is it similar, why is it dissimilar? There is abundant good material arguing contrary positions in some cases, and consensus beyond any religious tradition in others.
I will be removing the uncited commentary shortly, and replacing it with a clear restatement of the source's excellent and important argument. Please step up quickly if anyone has a relibable source that can rescue the current commentary. Alastair Haines 04:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good quote, poor interpretation

message: I didn't mean to introduce undue weight but really this whole question does need some sort of lead-in. As it is the whole topic is completely incomprehensible to any reader who is not already an expert on Christian theology. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead-in to Betulah and Almah discussion 

message: Lima, if you read the paragraph, you will see it is Matthew referring to the prophecy in Isaiah, so I had changed that to quote Isaiah, and the appropriate verse.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Lima (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fulfilment of the prophecy 

message: I agree with Alastair Haines.  Is there agreement on the part also of those who insist that anything whatever that some scholarly secondary source says must be accepted uncritically unless a contradictory scholarly secondary source is found?  ODCC does say that belief in the Virgin Birth of Christ is implied in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.  Alastair Haines says, I think rightly, that the belief is explicitly stated in those creeds ("born of the virgin Mary").  May we ignore ODCC and remove the reference to it at this point in the article?  Or should we keep saying that the belief is only "implied" in the creeds?
(By the way, I would rephrase some expressions, such as "extant copies of the original".)  Lima (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I do not have access to the ODCC, I cannot verify the source. Perhaps whoever added the information made a typo? If that is the case, then I would support the change from implied to explicit. However, if the ODCC specifically says implies and explains why the text is not explicit, then Haines' correction would violate WP:NOR. We'd be using a primary source to say that the Oxford scholars are wrong. Alternatively, we could cite another source, but then we'd have to present both POV (Oxford scholars say X, other source says Y). Also, how am I to verify that the 'Extant copies of the originals have "of Mary the virgin"' without a new source. But again, the ODCC could say all of this stuff and Haines could be using the already cited source, so I apologize if that is the case and my calls of WP:OR are too presumptuous. Just trying to consider all possibilities. Would someone with access to the ODCC mind typing up the relevant portion of text for our consideration?-Andrew c [talk] 14:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ODCC article begins: "The belief that Jesus Christ had no human father, but was conceived by the Blessed Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, is clearly stated in the two narratives of Christ's Infancy recorded in the Gospels (Mt. 1 f. and Lk. 1 f.), and has been a consistent tenet of orthodox Christian theology. It is also implied in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. ..."  Lima (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the ODCC used the term "implied" and contrasts it with "clearly stated" doesn't look promising, but if it does not go into any more detail I may be inclined to agree with Lima that it was just an "infelicitous expression". However, the contrast between "implied" and "explicit" seems a little jarring considering the sources. I think it's fine to simply say that the creeds "mention" or "cite" the virgin birth, without any adverbs to describe how. Unless someone can come up with a rational how the creeds only imply or do not mention the virgin birth, I think the current state of the article is satisfactory. Do others agree?-Andrew c [talk] 15:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need to preserve the ODCC statement?  May we just drop it, as I suggested this morning?  As long as it is kept, there seems to be a good reason to keep also the balancing statement about the mention in the creeds being in reality explicit.  Lima (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alastair Haines's correction 

message: I must say, this article is looking a lot better than how I remember it, some months ago. Given the subject matter, I can imagine getting from there to here has not been easy. Knowing the quality of editors like Andrew and Lima, I can't say I'm surprised things have gone forwards.
I can unreservedly say that there is a wealth of depth and breadth of content, the breadth is particularly noteworthy. Sticking my neck out a bit, I will add that I think there was distinct bias against Christianity before. I did not get that impression with a quick run through today.
Because I am a Christian, I tend to be more worried about articles that do not set off alarm bells than those that do. Have we silenced an important current of challenges? Have we been fair to those that are represented? It looks pretty right to me, but I don't trust my judgement so well in that assessment. Given what we had before, though, and the fact that most content remains, just minus the "we got you here" tone, I think the editors here have forged something quite special. Rarely do projects have to assimilate the kind of diversity that Wiki sometimes generates. When Wiki manages situations like this well, the text that comes out of it has, to my reading, an exciting freshness.
I want to say again, though, Lima and Andrew are outstanding editors. Lima's economy of expression delights me (it's something I just don't seem to be able to get myself). His depth of knowledge and experience is something I can only guess at, but evidence of it is everywhere he works. Andrew's extraordinary productivity and perceptive interaction with other editors leaves a trail of progress all over Wiki.
I hope you two can take compliments better than I can. Sorry if I embarass you. But what I say is actually verifiable! ;)
Apologies to others at work here, who I haven't acknowledged.
Is it worth suggesting adding some artwork? (I hope I'm not suggesting breaking the second commandment here.) As titled, it must be one of the most depicted scenes in history (even if it is not historical). I suggest this, because it would fit with Good Article status, which this article is very, very close to. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For artwork, what about something like what's shown at http://www.goarch.org/en/special/listen_learn_share/nativity/learn/. If that one isn't usable for copyright reasons, I'm sure something similar could be found that's permissable. I like it because it includes depictions of several different parts of the nativity story. Wesley (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By "Virgin birth of Jesus" is usually understood not his birth but his conception, which is usually believed to have occurred when, according to the Gospel of Luke, the angel announced it to Mary and she accepted. There are many images of that Annunciation.  The problem is which to choose.  Lima (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations!

message: Speculation that "Holy Spirit" was a euphemism used by Mary is at best original research. It is not even supported by the (not very authoritative) article cited. In any case, it would be out of place at this point, which is a subsection of the discussion on the Gospels, and there is no suggestion that Matthew and Luke were using a euphemism.
The question of the possibility a natural parthenogenic explanation is dealt with earlier in the article. There is no need to mention it again and in such an unencyclopedic manner.  Matthew and Luke - remember, that is what is discussed in this section - did not think there was any natural explanation, much less of the starfish kind, for what they presented as fact.  Lima (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this section is a litany of explanations, and euphemism is just one of many. I would not hasten to know what either Matthew or Luke "think". All we have is their writings, we can not ask them what they thought at the time. Euphemism, however, is a much more modern concept, the word did not exist until 1650–60. However, for 300 years now it has been a popular belief that it was a euphemism and not an actual occurrence. Euphemism has become particularly popular in recent years and has even spawned the more modern term, doublespeak, which originated in 1950–55, and has become very common recently. It would however be too derogatory a word to use for the virgin birth of Jesus. 2ndAmendment (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "All we have is the writings of Matthew and Luke"; yes, and these present the virginal conception of Jesus as fact.  It is hard to imagine that they thought of Mary as a starfish; and I don't suppose they knew anything about parthenogenic sharks.  I don't think 2ndAmendment's talk about the origin of the words "euphemism" and "doublespeak" is relevant to defending the supposed relevance of his additions to the article.  Do others find it relevant?  Lima (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euphemism