[Moderator]

No judgements...no implications....no politics.

Do you truly, honestly, and without reservation believe that Mary, the Mary, was a virgin...

Cast your vote, state your case.

[BRussell]

The whole virgin thing was based on a mistranslation.

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally Posted by Moderator

No judgements...no implications....no politics.

Do you truly, honestly, and without reservation believe that Mary, the Mary, was a virgin...

Cast your vote, state your case.

cleaned up your post for you.

and no, i don't think she was a virgin when she popped out that white baby.

[Kevin]

So this will settle it once and for all right?

[porieux]

...

[Moderator]

k..got it.

and my answer is no as well.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by BRussell

The whole virgin thing was based on a mistranslation.

I've heard this, too. "Virgin" just meant young woman—nothing to do with whether she had sex or not. Does this have any real backing or is it Dan Brownian nonsense?

[paul w]

But did she have a little lamb, whose fleece was white as snow?

[besson3c]

Mary, Mary, why you buggin'?

[BlueSky]

The attribute of immaculate conception was common to Kings, Queens, exalted big-shots etc. back in the oldey times. Mary was one of those, or rather JC. It's just PR stuff.

[Kevin]

I had that record in the 80s...

Anyhow, for the whole Jesus being the savior thing. Mary would have HAD to be a virgin when she gave birth.

But that's besides the point.

The holy ghost got busy with her.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Anyhow, for the whole Jesus being the savior thing. Mary would have HAD to be a virgin when she gave birth.

Why?

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So this will settle it once and for all right?

, no.

[Rolling Bones]

Slut!

She had other children and not all by Joe.

The harlot.

[TailsToo]

I wasn't there, so I don't know...

[Dark Helmet]

Strut over to any catholic school half of the students think having anal and oral sex means they are still virgins and not breaking the rules.

I know this because 6 of my friend are teachers, the Catholic schools have the highest pregnancy and violence rate in the Provence.

My high school didn't have a daycare for the children's children.

[Bad Poetry]

Mary was a Ho
Immaculate Conception?
HA HA HA HA HA

[SirCastor]

Geeze, you guys really need to do your homework before you start spouting off words and phrases so recklessly.

Immaculate conception is not the same as The Virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

As I've said before, not authoratative, but at least in this case, accurate.

[moonmonkey]

If she was a virgin, god would have noticed.

[Kr0nos]

Could you please define "sexual intercourse"?!

[Ken Mastεrs]

The dead sea scrolls, unveiled that there was a mistranslation.

[ism]

More importantly was she hot?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Why?

Jesus couldn't be born into sin, if his purpose was to die for sins.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Could you please define "sexual intercourse"?!

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

I've heard this, too. "Virgin" just meant young woman—nothing to do with whether she had sex or not. Does this have any real backing or is it Dan Brownian nonsense?

It's slightly better than Brown noise: some Christian scholars support this viewpoint. There are several arguments that they use, but none of them are particularly strong.

The first is that only two of the four gospels mention the virgin birth, and none of the subsequent letters make mention of it. Only two of the four gospels make mention of the Sermon on the Mount, but no one disputes it. I'm not sure how the quantity of mentions is important. If all four gospels said the same thing, what would be the point of repeating it four times?

The second is that the word used in the prophecy of Isaiah is a word used for 'young woman', not for 'virgin'. This is true. However, in those times, prophecies like that had two fulfillments: one immediate and one future. The use of the word 'young woman' allows for an immediate fulfillment: a woman contemporary to Isaiah becomes pregnant as a sign to the people of God's commitment to the prophecy. Other arguments related to this word are that within the Hebrew language the 'young woman' word that was used means a young woman of marrying age and that all other uses in the Old Testament make reference to an unmarried, virgin woman, thus showing that it is not unreasonable to have used this word.

[Kevin]

Wow 10 votes FOR..

I would have never thought to get that many in this particular forum.

Color my surprised.

[andreas_g4]

If she was no virgin, the kid was no Jesus.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Jesus couldn't be born into sin, if his purpose was to die for sins.

Again: why? What's the logic here?

Jesus relativized the law. He healed on the Sabbath, declared "unclean" food (and people) clean. Why can't the laws of coupling sway for the one who would sway the law and people?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Again: why? What's the logic here?

Jesus relativized the law. He healed on the Sabbath, declared "unclean" food (and people) clean. Why can't the laws of coupling sway for the one who would sway the law and people?

In order for someone to have died for ones sins, that person has to be sinless, and not born into sin.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Kevin

In order for someone to have died for ones sins, that person has to be sinless, and not born into sin.

You're not answering the question I'm asking: "why?" At the very least a quotation or two would be helpful.

[wdlove]

I believe that Mary was a Virgin.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

The attribute of immaculate conception was common to Kings, Queens, exalted big-shots etc. back in the oldey times. Mary was one of those, or rather JC. It's just PR stuff.

Yeah, I heard that too. A sound, logical and historical fact, BlueSky.

[OSX Abuser]

Was Mary the Wife of Jesus?

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Bad Poetry

Immaculate Conception?
HA HA HA HA HA

Perhaps Jesus was a Jedi.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Bad Poetry

Immaculate Conception?
HA HA HA HA HA

Perhaps Jesus was a Jedi.

[medicineman]

Your theology is a little skewed. The Immaculate Conception refers to Ann's birth of Mary.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

It's slightly better than Brown noise: some Christian scholars support this viewpoint. There are several arguments that they use, but none of them are particularly strong.

The first is that only two of the four gospels mention the virgin birth, and none of the subsequent letters make mention of it. Only two of the four gospels make mention of the Sermon on the Mount, but no one disputes it. I'm not sure how the quantity of mentions is important. If all four gospels said the same thing, what would be the point of repeating it four times?

But the virgin birth is such a momentous occasion, such an incredible event, that if it was true, it would certainly be discussed. Paul, the first person to write about Jesus (that we know of), didn't mention it. The other gospels not only don't mention it, but they say that Joseph was the father.

One of the things that strikes me as strange is the conflict of two separate claims to prophecy:
1. That Jesus was a descendant of David through Joseph, and
2. That Joseph wasn't really his father, because it was a virgin birth.

How can both be true?

Another odd inconsistency is the desire to get Jesus into Bethlehem, the city of David, to again make the claim for the lineage to David. But Jesus was form Nazareth, not Bethlehem. So different Gospels have different stories about how Jesus got to Bethlehem, one saying something about a census, and another saying that Herod was trying to kill all first-born (making another link to Moses).

It just seems to me that they were, as was the custom then, trying to link Jesus historically to other great figures - Moses, David, "Immanuel" from the prophecy. My view is that basically nothing was known about Jesus until they last few years of his life. Everything before that was conjecture, mostly intended to buff up his credentials.

The second is that the word used in the prophecy of Isaiah is a word used for 'young woman', not for 'virgin'. This is true. However, in those times, prophecies like that had two fulfillments: one immediate and one future. The use of the word 'young woman' allows for an immediate fulfillment: a woman contemporary to Isaiah becomes pregnant as a sign to the people of God's commitment to the prophecy. Other arguments related to this word are that within the Hebrew language the 'young woman' word that was used means a young woman of marrying age and that all other uses in the Old Testament make reference to an unmarried, virgin woman, thus showing that it is not unreasonable to have used this word.

I think there are two basic theories for skepticism of the virgin birth (aside form the obvious disbelief in something that's impossible ) :
1. It was an attempt to provide Jesus with some of the street cred that pagan figures such as Mithras had, and
2. The mistranslation theory.

[MacNStein]

Mat 1:24,25
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

[ort888]

Think of poor Joseph. He couldn't even get any action from his own wife. If Mary was a virgin, she surely had to be a frigid ice-queen. How long were they married before the immaculate conception?

[historylme]

I voted with what I learned in Catholic school.

but the rational self says (and I belive this) that she got biblical before delivering the prize.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ort888

How long were they married before the immaculate conception?

Uh oh some people are about to come down hard on you for terminology.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Mat 1:24,25
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Uh-huh. And what's the line right before that? What prophecy is it based on and is it an accurate interpretation of that prophecy?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by BRussell

But the virgin birth is such a momentous occasion, such an incredible event, that if it was true, it would certainly be discussed. Paul, the first person to write about Jesus (that we know of), didn't mention it. The other gospels not only don't mention it, but they say that Joseph was the father.

The virgin birth is not really important to the purpose of Jesus. Paul's focus was largely on Jesus' teaching and death, which were important. Whether Jesus was born of a virgin or whether God just magically said 'Poof! There's Jesus!' isn't relevant to the purpose of Jesus' life and death.

One of the things that strikes me as strange is the conflict of two separate claims to prophecy:
1. That Jesus was a descendant of David through Joseph, and
2. That Joseph wasn't really his father, because it was a virgin birth.

How can both be true?

The prophets said that Jesus would be born into the house of David. Mary married into the house of David.

[Dakar]

So wait, producing a child by normal reproductive means is a sin?

[MacNStein]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Uh-huh. And what's the line right before that? What prophecy is it based on and is it an accurate interpretation of that prophecy?

It means he took her to his bed, but didn't have sex with her. The custom, at that time, was that if a man took a woman to his bed, they were then officially man and wife. It makes a very clear distinction, it's saying that Joseph was willing to take in this woman as his wife and not get any "payback", so to speak. That's quite impressive... or foolish, depending on who you ask.

I have an opinion on this subject, but it's just conjecture (like everyone else). There's nothing conclusive either way, no matter how you look at it, largely due to the RCC and their 1800 years of wholesale destruction and obfuscation.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

The virgin birth is not really important to the purpose of Jesus. Paul's focus was largely on Jesus' teaching and death, which were important. Whether Jesus was born of a virgin or whether God just magically said 'Poof! There's Jesus!' isn't relevant to the purpose of Jesus' life and death.

We could debate about whether it's important. I think it is - look at the creeds, the virgin birth is right there, whereas Jesus' teachings aren't mentioned at all. But that wasn't really my point. My point was that it was such an incredible, unbelievable, miraculous event, that it certainly would be mentioned if it was true or known. Why didn't Paul mention it? Did he not know about it? Does it really make sense that he would know about this incredible thing but not even bother to reference it once?

The prophets said that Jesus would be born into the house of David. Mary married into the house of David.

I thought he actually was supposed to be a descendant of Abraham and David. Do you know the specific Biblical reference?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

It means he took her to his bed, but didn't have sex with her. The custom, at that time, was that if a man took a woman to his bed, they were then officially man and wife. It makes a very clear distinction, it's saying that Joseph was willing to take in this woman as his wife and not get any "payback", so to speak. That's quite impressive... or foolish, depending on who you ask.

I have an opinion on this subject, but it's just conjecture (like everyone else). There's nothing conclusive either way, no matter how you look at it, largely due to the RCC and their 1800 years of wholesale destruction and obfuscation.

I'm talking about the line before that. Matthew 1:23 I guess it is. That's the part that referenced the prophecy from, I think it's Isaiah, where the mistranslation theory comes in. And I want to know why Yeshua wasn't named Immanuel instead. Wasn't that the prophecy too?

[Kevin]

There are alot more people voting that she was in this forum than I thought would.

Color me shocked.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Dakar

So wait, producing a child by normal reproductive means is a sin?

Amazing line of thinking isn't it?

[OAW]

Such debates occur only amongst those who insist upon reading the biblical "events" literally. Many of the events (and some would argue some of the personalities as well) are allegorical representations of astronomical events designed to impart a spiritual message. The original authors of these stories knew this, but the general public was only exposed to the surface level. As thousands of years have passed, most of the public is still caught up in such literal interpretations and many in the clergy as well.

The fact of the matter is that the "Virgin Birth Story" is not unique to Mary. In fact, the "Crucified and Resurrected Savior" store is not unique to Jesus. Similar stories were told in ancient Kemet (Egypt) about Heru (Horus) and in ancient India about Krishna. Amongst others. Heru was the archetype for Jesus ... the Son of God, Sun God, etc. In the time that these stories were written, priests/astronomers took our sun and charted its course through the constellations in the sky. On Dec. 22 we have the winter solstice which is the shortest day of the year. This symbolically represents the "death" of the Sun God (Son of God). For 3 days the light of the sun is at its lowest point until Dec. 25 when it starts increase again. This symbolizes the (re)birth of the Sun God (Son of God). This is the reason why Dec. 25 was chosen as the day to celebrate Christmas! Anyhoo, at the time these stories where written, the constellation Virgo rises on the horizon at midnight on Dec. 25. Thus, we have the source of the "born of a virgin" story.

Google for the parallels between Jesus, Heru/Horus, Krishna, Buddha, Mithra, etc. Google for the parallels between Mary, Auset/Isis, Aphrodite, Venus, etc. The documentation is plentiful.

OAW