Obviously it cannot be proven either way. But does the fact that many pagan traditions, as well as ancient precursor religions to Judeo-Christianity refer to a God-man of virgin birth cast any doubt on the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth. This tradition falls in line with the skeptic who says that Christianity is nothing more than convergance of traditions, societies and legends at just the right time.

Also, what if a dna paternity test was available back in 1 B.C. and they matched Joseph to JC?

I've provided a link with a few examples of pre-Christian virgin myths...

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/pagan_ideas_virgin_birth.html

I have no idea what "virgin birth" means.

If someone uses a syringe to inject semen (like artificial insemination) is that a virgin birth?

I presume Jesus had the same DNA as the rest of us. I also presume that Mary did not provide all sets of the DNA (which would be impossible since women do not carry the Y chromosome). So how did the DNA get combined?

Is the answer "magic"?

I have no idea what "virgin birth" means.
----------------------------------------------

Yes. you do. virgin pregnancy resulting in a birth.

Nobody had sex with her.

And somehow by powers not understood by us, God had her impregnated.

No, since it really happened per Scripture.

God created life within Mary and she was a Virgin. However, it can and has been debated did she remain a virgin after conception? Did Mary have intercourse with Joseph before Jesus was born? Would it matter?

[This message has been edited by Kline7 (edited 4/10/2008 5:09p).]

Some of you bible scholars will have a better grasp than myself. But isn't there some debate as to whether the "virgin birth myth" was added to texts later. For instance Luke and Mark(I think) don't even mention that Mary was a virgin at all. While the other gospels do.

But my original point was that this "virgin birth myth" is so prevalent in earlier traditions that I find it kind of tacky that God would rehash this old tired myth for his New World Order(i.e. Christianity)

Yes, it would. She was the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and belonged completely to God.

Numbers 30 talks vows taking precedence over everything else in marriage.

6] And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself,
[7] and her husband hears of it, and says nothing to her on the day that he hears; then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand.


Paul talks about not marrying your betrothed in

1Cor.7

1. [36] If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry -- it is no sin.
2. [37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.
3. [38] So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

quote:

---

She was the spouse of the Holy Spirit

---

She was the spouse of Joseph.

quote:

---

She was the spouse of the Holy Spirit

---

That would make the Holy Spirit a lesbian since Ruach HaKodesh ("Holy Spirit" in Hebrew) is feminine. It would also make God a polygamist since He identified Israel as His bride.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 4/10/2008 5:39p).]

Bracy, that's interesting, yet Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as "He", at least in my bible.

Even so, it is absurd to suggest that Joseph and Mary were not married.

TechDiver:

quote:

---

Bracy, that's interesting, yet Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as "He", at least in my bible.

---

That's because the Greek word pneuma that is used to translate it, is neuter.

quote:

---

But does the fact that many pagan traditions, as well as ancient precursor religions to Judeo-Christianity refer to a God-man of virgin birth cast any doubt on the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth.

---

The recent pop culture trend of proof-texting pagan gods and comparing them to Jesus are freaking absurd. Often times the similarities such as the virgin birth are pulled out of thin air and added to an existing myth.

"The recent pop culture trend of proof-texting pagan gods and comparing them to Jesus are freaking absurd. Often times the similarities such as the virgin birth are pulled out of thin air and added to an existing myth. "
--------------------------------------------------

you say "pulled out of thin air"
I gave sources and examples that predate the Christian myth.

Like any similarity is greatly exagerated...while ignoring how the pagan myths are tremendously different. Coincidences don't prove anything.

Like any similarity is greatly exagerated
----------------------------------------------

exagGerated!!!!!!!!!!

just kidding I'm not the spelling police.

That is a good point, there probably are huge differences between the myths. But a common theme of virgin mother & God father is constant.
Will you at least concede that a skeptic would look at all of these themes in an anthropologic sense and say that the myths borrowed from each other. And this corolation makes it easier for a modern day skeptic to cast this legend onto the heap with the other ancient virgin-birth traditions?

I would agree to that from a skeptic's perspective.

That said, what makes Christianity isn't the virgin birth - it's crucifixion followed by the resurrection.

By the way, I don't have the time or the interest to research the virgin birth myths you cited, but I do know that the virgin birth of Christ was prophesied hundreds of years before His birth, predating at least a few of the ones you cited.

You must also concede that the OT...which preceeds many of the myths foretold of a virgin birth before many of them.

Hat tip to Bracy's side of the aisle for this thread...

http://www.messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/paganparallelsvirginbirth.htm

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/is_the_virgin_birth_of_jesus_grounded_in_paganism

C.S.Lewis saw the similarities as affirmation of divine revelation. So, I guess it depends on whether you're looking for a reason to believe or a reason to scoff.

from Mere Christianity:He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and by his death, has somehow given new life to men.

[This message has been edited by me1og (edited 4/10/2008 6:29p).]

I haven't seen any claims or examples of virgin births in the old pagan religions.
The births are the result of intercourse between the god or goddess and a human person.
That's quite different from Christianity.

quote:

---

That said, what makes Christianity isn't the virgin birth - it's crucifixion followed by the resurrection.

---

cause the theme of resurrection is never found in ANY other religions

quote:

---

But does the fact that many pagan traditions, as well as ancient precursor religions to Judeo-Christianity refer to a God-man of virgin birth cast any doubt on the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth.

---

One word answer.....no it doesnt.

I enjoy how people dance around the obvious and just accept something completly ludacris just because it applies to their faith. It's like someone trying to explain the Trinity and trying to avoid that whole "no other God but me" issue in the 10 Commandments.

Virgin Birth is absurd and just as crazy as the the myths found in ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome and other Pagan faiths.

Losman....why rule out the possibility there may be something beyond the ability of your finite mind to understand?

Fah

Because women who give birth tend to have mortal men who sired the child. This whole idea of virgin birth is silly and makes the Jesus story sound just as crazy as the origin of Osiris, Mithris and Superman.

Once again, Tech, if you study the bible, specifically the Pauline scriptures I posted, you will begin to see that a virgin's vows take precedence over consummating a marriage. How we do things now is not the way things were done in Israel 2000 years ago.

73, it doesn't matter HOW you slice it, nor what you believe was the circumstance or relationship between Mary and Joseph, it does not change the fact that Mary and Joseph WERE MARRIED.

It is biblical to the extreme. Fewer things could be more biblical than Mary and Joseph being married. Whether Mary and Joseph had sex, whether Jesus had biological half-siblings, sure - let's discuss those things all you want.

But you are sadly and grossly mistaken if it is your contention that Mary and Joseph were not married. There is not one whit of scripture that suggests otherwise.

It seems to be your contention that Mary was married to the Holy Spirit. I don't know what to make of that contention. It's a mystery to me how you could come to that conclusion.

Is it your contention that Mary was married to the Holy Spirit AND married to Joseph?

Is it your contention that Mary and Joseph were not married?

Please spell it out because I've completely lost your point somewhere.

quote:

---

How we do things now is not the way things were done in Israel 2000 years ago.

---

I do not apply a modern view of marriage to what I think of Joseph and Mary's marriage, BTW.

Quite the contrary: I take my view of marriage from scripture, and what it means to be married, and instructions the bible gives to men and women who are married.

If Joseph and Mary were indeed married, and they were, then it would be an unbiblical marriage for them to have never consummated it. That has nothing to do with a modern definition of marriage and everything to do with a biblical one.

One might even view a marriage without sex as being a sinful one. I am not aware of any scripture that teaches the benefits of marriages of convenience, but I am aware of lots of scripture that emphasizes the importance of healthy sexuality in a marriage.

If it is your contention that Joseph and Mary were not married, then spell it out and support that contention.

Tech, many of us believe that Mary's being chowen consecrated her, set her apart.
If an angel came to you and told you your betrothed was pregnant by the Holy Spirit and would bear the long awaited Messiah, would you be thinking about a roll in the hay?

Whether she was a virgin or not doesn't matter to me. I do believe the child she bore, Christ, was conceived by the Holy SPirit though.

Primrose, what I think doesn't matter in the context of scripture. In other words, what anyone believes to be the truth doesn't change the truth.

I have read 73's message to suggest that Mary and Joseph weren't married. That is clearly and demonstrably false. That line of thinking is against what scripture tells us.

Now, if you choose to believe that Joseph and Mary were married but for some reason never consummated that marriage, we can discuss that but we'll never get anywhere because the bible doesn't record their sex lives and therefore we don't have a means of deciding that argument. I personally believe that the bible indicates that Jesus had biological half-siblings, and I personally believe that the bible gives clear instructions that married couples are to have a healthy sexual relationship and with the first commandment in scripture being to procreate, which would make an asexual marriage of convenience a very peculiar and unbiblical marriage.

But that's what I believe, and I can't argue it with any definitive answer because the bible doesn't clearly spell it out in a way that will satisfy someone who wants to believe otherwise.

However, the bible is crystal clear that Mary and Joseph were married. On this point there is no ambiguity, and in my opinion anyone who believes that Joseph and Mary weren't actually married is being badly misled from somewhere.

quote:

---

Whether she was a virgin or not doesn't matter to me. I do believe the child she bore, Christ, was conceived by the Holy SPirit though.

---

Obviously...I have a big problem with that statement....

Do any non-Catholics think that this attitude is very dangerous?

I wonder how many different "if this was/wasn't true how would it influence your faith" threads are we going to have in a two week period?





[This message has been edited by The Lone Stranger (edited 4/11/2008 9:52a).]