Christian deceptions: Was Mary really a Virgin?

[drifteri]

The Virgin Birth is mentioned in New Testament passages, but there are grounds for regarding these mentions as unreliable additions, a fact well known to all theologians, but not generally passed on to the faithful. Different Christian denominations have different understandings of Mary's virginity. Orthodox Churches refer to her as aeiparthenos (ever-virgin). Roman Catholics and some others state specifically that she remained virgo intacta throughout her life, even during the birth of Jesus*. Others believe that she remained a virgin throughout her life in the sense that she never engaged in sexual intercourse with a man. Almost all accept that she was a virgin at the time of Jesus" conception. For clarity we will look separately at the claims to virginity after, during, and before the birth of Jesus.

After the Birth of Jesus

We pick out a text here and there to make it serve our turn; whereas if we take it all together, and consider what went before and what followed after, we should find it meant no such thing.
John Selden (1584-1654), Table Talk, "Bible Scripture"

The claim that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus is difficult to sustain. For one thing the gospels strongly imply that sexual intercourse took place between Mary and Joseph. The author of Matthew, for example, says "then Joseph ... took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son ..." (Matthew 1:24-25). Earlier in his account, the same author refers to a time "before they came together ..." (Matthew 1:18). (In modern translations the euphemisms knew and came together are sometimes replaced by other euphemisms such as came to live together , having union, or by explicit references to intercourse.)

More damaging still are the numerous references throughout the New Testament to Jesus" brothers and sisters. One of his brothers is called James*, explicitly identified as the brother of Jesus in Galatians 1:19. Jude (or Juda or Judas) is referred to as James's brother in Jude 1:1. Both James and Jude, and others named Joses and Simon along with unspecified sisters, are mentioned in the Matthew gospel. Jesus" brothers are also mentioned in Matthew 12:46, Mark 3:31, John 2:12, Acts 1:14 and 1 Corinthians 9:5. Elsewhere the historian Josephus mentions Jesus" brothers*. Again, in the non-canonical Gospel of the Hebrews Jesus specifically addresses James (James the Righteous) as "my brother".

Such facts are difficult to reconcile with the concept of Mary's eternal virginity. In an attempt to reconcile the contradictions, it has been pointed out that Middle Eastern languages do not always distinguish between close relations such as siblings and cousins, and that Jesus" brothers and sisters could really be cousins. Since the gospels were not written in a Semitic language, but in Greek, and supposedly by people close to the events, this argument is of doubtful value. Both Mark and Luke use the word adelphoi, which means brothers, rather than anepsioi or other alternatives, which might have meant "close relations" (and similarly for adelphai, sisters).

Another difficulty for the close relation theory is that some of the brothers are specifically identified as sons of Mary. First, Matthew 13:55-6 introduces the family group:

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not with us? ...

A parallel passage in Mark 6:3 gives a similar list (with Juda instead of Judas). Critically, the Mark author identifies Mary as the mother of James, Joses, and perhaps one of the sisters (Mark 15:40). Rather tenaciously, theologians have sought to explain this away by suggesting that Mary had a sister who was also called Mary or, when that theory became too difficult to sustain, that she had two sisters, both of them also called Mary*. Many consider these theories to be contrived, and of little value against the straightforward interpretation that the same Mary was the mother of Jesus, James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, Judas (or Juda, or Jude), and at least two sisters.

Different Churches tried to explain away Jesus" siblings in different ways, attributing weight to dubious early writings according to whether they supported their favoured line. They became Mary's nephews and nieces in the West, but another explanation was favoured in the East. According to Eastern Churches Mary's other children were step-children, Joseph's sons and daughters by an earlier marriage. There is not a scintilla of evidence for either contention. The truth is that any straightforward reading of the New Testament suggests nothing other than that, after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary settled down to an ordinary married life, and that Mary bore Joseph a number of children. This is the interpretation given in Protestant versions of the Bible, and also seems to have been the prevailing view of the earliest Christians*.

 

[drifteri]

During the Birth of Jesus

It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that virginity could be a virtue.
Voltaire (1694-1778), Notebooks

What exactly it can mean to remain a virgin during birth has been the subject of much speculation. For present purposes we shall adopt the meaning favoured by the Roman Catholic Church, that the hymen remains intact during birth.

There is no evidence, not even a suggestion, in the canonical gospels of Mary's hymen having remained intact during the birth of Jesus. Early Christian writers accepted that Mary did lose her virginity during the birth of Jesus*. The earliest sources that suggest otherwise, dating from the second century AD, are Gnostic*, and would now be discounted as heretical if they had not been the only straws to clutch at for those who liked the idea of Mary remaining virgo intacta. Some later Church Fathers had also clutched at those straws, and the Roman Church now cites these Fathers as authorities on the matter. The earliest and most respected Fathers either did not consider the question or else rejected the idea of Mary remaining virgo intacta during the birth. The same applied to other important figures well into the fourth century, including the champions of orthodoxy*.

A vierge ouvrante, evidently rather crowded [A South American representation of Mary] Possible mechanisms by which Mary could have remained virgo intacta have exercised the minds of theologians since the fourth century. During the Middle Ages, it was widely believed that Mary had conceived by being inseminated by the Holy Ghost through her ear*, a belief that resulted in female ears being treated with the utmost modesty for a time.

An ear would hardly serve for the delivery. One possibility was that Jesus had exited Mary's womb through a sort of door in her abdomen. Statues of Mary with the whole Trinity snuggled behind an opening door in her belly were once popular objects of devotion. Characterised in this way Mary was known as the vierge ouvrante ("Opening Virgin")

Alternative posibilities were that he appeared through Mary's side, or that he emerged as a ray of light from her intact vagina, or that he dematerialised in the womb and then re-materialised again outside of Mary's body. One Church Father claimed that he came through Mary like water through a pipe*. However it was done, traditional teaching has been that it involved no labour pains and no afterbirth — known to theologians as sordes, or filth.

The tradition that Mary had retained her virginity arose at the same time as, and is just as reliable as, a range of other pious traditions that have now been abandoned: for example that the baby was weightless, never cried, never needed cleaning, and was born with adult intelligence. The canonical gospels make no suggestion that the birth was carried out in any but the usual way, and imply that parturition was perfectly normal. After all, purification was required under Jewish Law for women after childbirth primarily because of the blood involved; and Mary undoubtedly underwent purification*. Furthermore the gospels confirm in so many words that Jesus was born in the conventional manner:

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him [Jesus] to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord Luke 2:22-23

"Openeth the womb" is as specific a term for conventional childbirth as one could hope for. In the absence of any other contemporary evidence it is difficult to reach any conclusion other than that the mechanics of the birth of Jesus were perfectly conventional. For an objective scholar there is no reason to doubt that they involved not only the normal orifice, but also normal labour and normal afterbirth.

 

[drifteri]

Before the Birth of Jesus

Now has come the last age according to the oracle at Cumæ…Now too, the virgin goddess returns.
Virgil (70-19 BC), Eclogues, 4, 1.4

That Mary was a virgin before the birth of Jesus is at least supported by the gospels. Luke for example reports that she claimed to be a virgin at the time of the conception:

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Luke 1:34

Also she is referred to as a virgin on a number of occasions. The case therefore looks reasonably good, until we look into the matter a little more deeply. First it is notable that the oldest New Testament writings refer to Jesus as being born of a woman rather than of a virgin*. His human ancestry on the male side is assumed in Galatians 3 (see particularly verse 16). St Paul makes no mention of the Virgin Birth anywhere in his copious writings. Also, the earliest gospel, Mark, offers no nativity story at all. In fact the nativity story occurs only in two gospels, Matthew and Luke, and the versions are different and often contradictory. The older of the two, the Matthew gospel, makes little of Mary's virginity. He mentions it only once and then indirectly:

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:22-3

This is a reference to a passage in the Old Testament:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel* Isaiah 7:14

A critical point is that in the original Hebrew the word translated as virgin in Isaiah is "almah , and "almah does not mean "virgin" but "nubile young woman", which is a different concept altogether. Elsewhere in the Old Testament the word "almah is applied to harem girls and to young widows*. If the Hebrew text had meant to convey the idea of virginity, a more explicit word like bethulah could have been used*. The confusion apparently arose because the word "almah had been inaccurately translated into Greek in the Septuagint as parthenos, which does mean "virgin", rather than an alternative word for a girl such as neanis. So parthenos was the term that the Matthew author would have found in the Septuagint. This, therefore was the term he used as well, apparently unaware of the error in the original translation. Matthew's error has long been known. A Jew named Trypho pointed it out in the second century AD*.

What all this seems to suggest is that some Greek speakers invented the Virgin Birth in order to match a prophecy that they had misunderstood. It begins to look as though the virginity aspect was introduced to improve the match between a supposed Old Testament prophecy and Jesus" life story. As we have seen, a number of the details mentioned by the Matthew author seem to have been invented to fit in with real or imagined prophecies. Incidentally, the Orthodox Church, aware of this embarrassing situation, has found an explanation. It claims that the mistranslation in the Septuagint was made deliberately under the influence of the Holy Spirit as part of God's continuing revelation*.

The only other canonical gospel to mention Mary's virginity is the Luke gospel. The author of this gospel is universally accepted as having drawn upon the Matthew gospel, and it is more than possible that he took the virginity story from there. Neither in the Matthew nor Luke gospels are the events of the nativity referred to again after the initial story. Neither is the nativity mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament. Sometimes the nativity stories are plainly at variance with the rest of the text. For example, after searching for three days Mary and Joseph found Jesus in the temple:

And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. Luke 2:48-50

Mary and Joseph's failure to understand would be relatively unremarkable if they had thought Mary to be the ordinary mother of an ordinary child with an ordinary father. It is not however consistent with the knowledge with which the nativity stories credit them. Even after 12 years, one might suppose that a mother would not forget the words of angels, much less the fact that her child's father was God himself. What can be the explanation for this? Is the text reliable? The answer to this question has to be "no". The two nativity stories are widely acknowledged by Bible scholars to have been additions to the texts of the Matthew and Luke gospels. Moreover, a number of textual variants reveal the hands of interpolators. For example the genealogy of the Matthew writer is altered in different ways in different manuscripts, apparently to avoid naming Joseph explicitly as the father of Jesus*. Significantly, the earliest surviving Semitic version of Matthew, the Old Syriac Gospel, retains Joseph as the father*. Surviving manuscripts betray a range of amendments, not only in the genealogies but also throughout the texts, clearly made to avoid mentioning that Joseph was the real father. Indeed, there are so many that they provide a good academic case study in how "orthodox" Christians have deliberately corrupted their own scripture*.

There is no suggestion of Jesus being born the son of God in the Mark gospel. Instead he seems to have been adopted as a son of God at his baptism (Mark 1:9-12). Echoes of this event are still to be found in the other gospels, providing another set of inconsistencies.

If we discount the nativity stories as later additions, many anomalies are automatically removed from the New Testament. The author of Matthew, for example, had taken great trouble to trace Jesus" ancestry through Joseph to King David and ultimately to Abraham*, which would hardly be appropriate if Joseph was not his father. Elsewhere Jesus claims to be descended from David (Revelation 22:16). He is referred to as "the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3-4) and as being descended from the patriarchs (Romans 9:5 Jerusalem Bible). Mary and Joseph are explicitly mentioned as Jesus" "parents" (Luke 2:41), and as cited above Mary refers to Joseph as Jesus" "father" after finding him in the Temple. Jesus is also explicitly identified as the son of Joseph in John 1:45 and 6:42. The nearest any early writings come to attributing divine fatherhood to Jesus is in a passage by Ignatius of Antioch., who died around AD 107. In a letter to the community at Ephesus he introduced a divine influence into an otherwise conventional human conception: "Jesus Christ our God was conceived by Mary of the seed of David and of the spirit of God ..."*, and in another letter he referred to Jesus as being "truly of David's line in his manhood, yet Son of God by Divine will and power"*.

If we look at the beliefs of others that were in a position to know, such as the Jewish Christians known as Ebionites, we find that they denied the Virgin Birth, regarding Jesus as "the child of a normal union between a man and Mary"*. So did other early sects (like the Carpocratians ), and so did important early Church figures like Jovinian. According to early non-believers, Jesus' real father was a Roman centurion named Pantheras*, an accusation that is supported by the Talmud and other Jewish documents.

If the two gospel nativity stories are unreliable, there is no basis for the belief in the Virgin Birth. On the other hand there are many reasons for doubting it. We know that the Jews never expected the Messiah to be born of a virgin, and it is clear enough that the Matthew author did only because of a mistranslation. We know that the Matthew author liked to arrange matters to match Old Testament prophecies. Elsewhere, Jesus" human ancestry is assumed, and in some instances, which escaped the attentions of editors, Joseph is named as the father. We even have evidence of editors erasing mention of Jesus" human father from the text. All in all, the case for doubting the story of the Virgin Birth is a strong one.

 

[drifteri]

Perpetual Virginity

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.
Bertrand Russell , Sceptical Essays

On the evidence Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus. There is no reason at all to suppose that she remained virgo intacta during the birth of Jesus, and the evidence for her having been a virgin before the birth is questionable.

It is not difficult to see how the Virgin Birth story might have arisen. Early Christians were embarrassed that their leader was reputed to have been illegitimate. In the Hellenic world, where gods often impregnated human women, an obvious solution for any illegitimate putative leader was that a deity was the father. This had the dual advantage of explaining the illegitimacy and introducing an element of the divine. An Old Testament passage about a birth to a virgin apparently provided the key to the solution, or it would have done, had not the passage contained a critical mistranslation.

Many modern theologians accept that the story of the Virgin Birth is a myth designed to emphasise Mary's purity. It follows an established pattern, and may well have been based on existing stories. For example the mother of the Buddha was believed to have conceived without the aid of her husband. The infant emerged not by normal means but through his mother's side. She died soon afterwards "because it is not fitting that she who bears a Peerless One should afterwards indulge in love" (Mahavastu 21).


Despite all the evidence Mary still purports to retain her virginity, at least for the time being. The trick is done by tampering with the original texts, retaining known errors of translation, inserting suitable confirmatory material into sacred texts, rejecting the plain meaning of words in favour of contrived meanings, and glossing over contradictions and inconsistencies. All this is an open secret. No Church scholar of any standing denies it. But then none openly advertises it either, so the faithful masses remain in ignorance.

 

[Frodo]

People is Post Count Warrior (PCW) but you also Cut & Paste Warrior (CPW)! LOL!

 

[Psalm23]

Perpetual Virginity

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.
Bertrand Russell , Sceptical Essays

On the evidence Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus. There is no reason at all to suppose that she remained virgo intacta during the birth of Jesus, and the evidence for her having been a virgin before the birth is questionable.

It is not difficult to see how the Virgin Birth story might have arisen. Early Christians were embarrassed that their leader was reputed to have been illegitimate. In the Hellenic world, where gods often impregnated human women, an obvious solution for any illegitimate putative leader was that a deity was the father. This had the dual advantage of explaining the illegitimacy and introducing an element of the divine. An Old Testament passage about a birth to a virgin apparently provided the key to the solution, or it would have done, had not the passage contained a critical mistranslation.

Many modern theologians accept that the story of the Virgin Birth is a myth designed to emphasise Mary's purity. It follows an established pattern, and may well have been based on existing stories. For example the mother of the Buddha was believed to have conceived without the aid of her husband. The infant emerged not by normal means but through his mother's side. She died soon afterwards "because it is not fitting that she who bears a Peerless One should afterwards indulge in love" (Mahavastu 21).


Despite all the evidence Mary still purports to retain her virginity, at least for the time being. The trick is done by tampering with the original texts, retaining known errors of translation, inserting suitable confirmatory material into sacred texts, rejecting the plain meaning of words in favour of contrived meanings, and glossing over contradictions and inconsistencies. All this is an open secret. No Church scholar of any standing denies it. But then none openly advertises it either, so the faithful masses remain in ignorance.

It is interesting to note that how people trying to discredit the story of Virgin Birth has changed overtime. In early days, the main contention was that it was impossible to give birth when a girl was a virgin. But now we all know that this is completely possible using medical technology like IVF. Science has shown that virgin birth is possible, i.e. a woman can give birth without the need to have physical sexual relation with a man. [Sad to say that IVF has created many medical problems of babies born using IVY but that's another topic altogether and I think it's not relevant and appropriate to further discuss this in the blog here.]

Skeptics were shut up by science and now they tried to discredit the story of birth virgin as told in the Gospels on different manner. They will never succeed because this is God's sovereign plan to bring about full redemption of sinful man. Without virgin birth of Mary, crucifixion and death of Jesus and His resurrection, we will all be eternally perished.

Psalm23

 

[Agoraphobic]

With all due respect to Christians, the virgin birth is one issue that makes a Christian a true believer - the powers of their God. But I can't imagine how a Christian family will accept if their daughter came home one day and told her family she was pregnant, and not by her boyfriend, but by the Holy Spirit! Her parents would totally freakout! And would straightaway send her to an abortion clinic - no questions asked!!! I wonder when Mary announced to her husband/boyfriend(?) Joseph that she was carrying a baby, and it wasn't his - how he reacted to that then? Imagine how he could face his friends when he joined them for drinks at Friday night boy's night ouT!?!? I must have been very humiliating for him. Poor guy!

To your question, whether Mary was really a virgin or not, I suppose only Mary herself would know. Everyone else is supposed to believe she was. Because, in that story, she was the mother of God on Earth! And therefore, pure.

Cheers!

 

[Frodo]

With all due respect to Christians, the virgin birth is one issue that makes a Christian a true believer - the powers of their God. But I can't imagine how a Christian family will accept if their daughter came home one day and told her family she was pregnant, and not by her boyfriend, but by the Holy Spirit! Her parents would totally freakout! And would straightaway send her to an abortion clinic - no questions asked!!! I wonder when Mary announced to her husband/boyfriend(?) Joseph that she was carrying a baby, and it wasn't his - how he reacted to that then? Imagine how he could face his friends when he joined them for drinks at Friday night boy's night ouT!?!? I must have been very humiliating for him. Poor guy!

To your question, whether Mary was really a virgin or not, I suppose only Mary herself would know. Everyone else is supposed to believe she was. Because, in that story, she was the mother of God on Earth! And therefore, pure.

Cheers!

Uum....what makes you think that believing virgins would start claiming to be made pregnant by God's power? The Virgin birth was a one off miracle. In case you don't know, Mary did not remain a Virgin after Jesus was born.

 

[Agoraphobic]

To me, actually, Mary could not have been a virgin. To become pregnant, one would have to have intercourse. In the story, Mary was made pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit. In the concept of the Holy Trinity, the holy Spirit, God, and Jesus are the same being aren't they? (Actually, this part in Christianity is really confusing!) If it wasn't God's power, then whose was it? Some alien being? Some clandestine and advanced civilization on Earth? Whose? How did Mary become pregnant? I wouldn't know (nor care to know) if Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus or not! It's none of my business!

Cheers!

Uum....what makes you think that believing virgins would start claiming to be made pregnant by God's power? The Virgin birth was a one off miracle. In case you don't know, Mary did not remain a Virgin after Jesus was born.

 

[Frodo]

To me, actually, Mary could not have been a virgin. To become pregnant, one would have to have intercourse. In the story, Mary was made pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit. In the concept of the Holy Trinity, the holy Spirit, God, and Jesus are the same being aren't they? (Actually, this part in Christianity is really confusing!) If it wasn't God's power, then whose was it? Some alien being? Some clandestine and advanced civilization on Earth? Whose? How did Mary become pregnant? I wouldn't know (nor care to know) if Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus or not! It's none of my business!

Cheers!

Your answer again assumes the non-existence of God. Or if you think there is, it is not the God of the Bible!

God can make the universe out of nothing, God can fashion Adam from the dust of the ground and breathe life into him and he became a living soul, and you think a virgin birth is impossible and too hard for God? You are having problems comprehending the Trinity? Welcome to the club. Now, can you tell me, if Christianity is a man-made religion, why on earth would anyone in his right mind want to invent the doctrine of the Trinity, to attract converts or to confuse people? Nobody said it’s any of your business whether Mary remained a virgin or not. I made this point for your education, because I doubt you knew. Of course you can say you don’t care. So be it. There are many who believe that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, but the Bible text clearly refutes this point.

 

[Psalm23]

To me, actually, Mary could not have been a virgin. To become pregnant, one would have to have intercourse. In the story, Mary was made pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit. In the concept of the Holy Trinity, the holy Spirit, God, and Jesus are the same being aren't they? (Actually, this part in Christianity is really confusing!) If it wasn't God's power, then whose was it? Some alien being? Some clandestine and advanced civilization on Earth? Whose? How did Mary become pregnant? I wouldn't know (nor care to know) if Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus or not! It's none of my business!

Cheers!

Sure....and just just of you. It's none of the business for billions of people! But you raised a very interesting question: How did Mary become pregnant (by Holy Spirit)?

Can you imagine an IVF expert trying to explain IVF to ancient people who lived 4,000 thousand years' ago? Do you really think they can understand? Even today, and like many others, I still find it very difficult to understand how IVF works even though I did try to google this topic. To me, this technology is far too complicated.

Likewise, even God takes the trouble to explain conception by Holy Spirit, I don't think any human can understand. Just like for those who go for IVY treatment, they just trust the process works by faith even they don't understand how it really works and what's the point of understanding it. The primarily reason and importance for people seeking IVY treatment is not to understand the technology of IVY but just wanted a 'good' end result - to have a baby of their very own.

I would adopt the same notion - what's the point for pursuing the process of how conception by Holy Spirit works. Rather as born-again Christian, I look for good end result and that is virgin birth is the pre-requisite to God's redemption plan. You cannot replace this with another other. This is the only method that God must become man to deliver sinful man to Himself. The end result is that only through virgin birth of Mary that redemptive promise of God can be materialised. [Brother, it's ok you don't really care what is written here, but I pray many others do care.]

Psalm23

 

[Agoraphobic]

Must I assume that your God is responsible for everything? Then the way I think is the work of your God? Oh, its my free will, because your God gave me that privilege. Why then does your God not allow humans the knowledge of the cure to cancer? Or how to stop the terrorists from spreading? To me Christianity was made by men, to rule other men. That's why they had those ecumenical movements/gatherings, so the different factions could get together and agree on certain things, and shape history into something the common people can believe. How the Holy Trinity came about? I don't know. Perhaps you can explain, and why are there three beings? Isn't there supposed to be only one God?

Btw, the Bible was written by humans. I think they call them scribes. If they exist today, we'd call them writers, or stenographers.

Cheers!

Your answer again assumes the non-existence of God. Or if you think there is, it is not the God of the Bible!

God can make the universe out of nothing, God can fashion Adam from the dust of the ground and breathe life into him and he became a living soul, and you think a virgin birth is impossible and too hard for God? You are having problems comprehending the Trinity? Welcome to the club. Now, can you tell me, if Christianity is a man-made religion, why on earth would anyone in his right mind want to invent the doctrine of the Trinity, to attract converts or to confuse people? Nobody said it’s any of your business whether Mary remained a virgin or not. I made this point for your education, because I doubt you knew. Of course you can say you don’t care. So be it. There are many who believe that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, but the Bible text clearly refutes this point.

 

[Agoraphobic]

In vitro fertilisation isn't new. Its been around since early times, by farmers. It used to be called animal husbandry. IVF experts were engaged by farmers for cattle and other livestock breeding/propagation. Doing it to humans, well, there were social norms and taboos to overcome. Who'd want their wives/daughters to be treated like some animal by a stranger?

The story in the Bible gives the priests an added element of divinity to an otherwise earthly issue - child bearing. The Jesus story was based on earlier stories of a divine being born to an earthly mother. I think that character was from Egyptian folklore - Horus. And the story from there was tailored to fit the Jewish scriptures. So Jesus character would fit into that of the messiah the Jews were waiting for. Some of them are still waiting!

Cheers!

Sure....and just just of you. It's none of the business for billions of people! But you raised a very interesting question: How did Mary become pregnant (by Holy Spirit)?

Can you imagine an IVF expert trying to explain IVF to ancient people who lived 4,000 thousand years' ago? Do you really think they can understand? Even today, and like many others, I still find it very difficult to understand how IVF works even though I did try to google this topic. To me, this technology is far too complicated.

Likewise, even God takes the trouble to explain conception by Holy Spirit, I don't think any human can understand. Just like for those who go for IVY treatment, they just trust the process works by faith even they don't understand how it really works and what's the point of understanding it. The primarily reason and importance for people seeking IVY treatment is not to understand the technology of IVY but just wanted a 'good' end result - to have a baby of their very own.
I would adopt the same notion - what's the point for pursuing the process of how conception by Holy Spirit works. Rather as born-again Christian, I look for good end result and that is virgin birth is the pre-requisite to God's redemption plan. You cannot replace this with another other. This is the only method that God must become man to deliver sinful man to Himself. The end result is that only through virgin birth of Mary that redemptive promise of God can be materialised. [Brother, it's ok you don't really care what is written here, but I pray many others do care.]

Psalm23

 

[Agoraphobic]

Or probably Persian folklore - Mithra. Whatever, the Jesus story is based on an earlier divine story. It therefore is unlikely a true account - because it never happened!

Cheers!

......................... I think that character was from Egyptian folklore - Horus.......................................

Cheers!

 

[Frodo]

Must I assume that your God is responsible for everything? Then the way I think is the work of your God? Oh, its my free will, because your God gave me that privilege. Why then does your God not allow humans the knowledge of the cure to cancer? Or how to stop the terrorists from spreading? To me Christianity was made by men, to rule other men. That's why they had those ecumenical movements/gatherings, so the different factions could get together and agree on certain things, and shape history into something the common people can believe. How the Holy Trinity came about? I don't know. Perhaps you can explain, and why are there three beings? Isn't there supposed to be only one God?

Btw, the Bible was written by humans. I think they call them scribes. If they exist today, we'd call them writers, or stenographers.

Cheers!

Your answer already assume that there is no God, which is why you say the virgin birth is impossible, am I right? When you want to evaluate Christianity you have to use the theistic worldview of Christianity. If you want to ask theological questions you have to accept the theological presuppositions that underlies the answers given. That’s just common sense. If you want to talk about having free will, then you have to accept that it is given by God. Because atheism does not supply you the basis for believing in free will. You can talk about morality, logic, reason etc…atheism does not provide you any basis for why they exists. You have to borrow, steal even, from the Christian worldview to talk about these things. You asked so many “why” questions, but are you willing to accept the possible theistic answers to them? You said Christianity was made by men to rule other men. This is a simplistic…and false answer…that cannot be supported by any evidence at all. It doesn’t even hold logical water! In your view, the lying group of people who invented a fictional character called Jesus, and incited the Romans to crucify an imaginary person on the cross, and who then post guards to secure the tomb, and then the disciples on the 3rd day start to proclaim an imaginary fictional risen saviour, and then went on to preach and get persecuted and killed for what they knew to be a big lie, that’s YOUR take on their ruling of other men? How is getting persecuted even remotely seen as ruling other men???? The only appropriate response to such a conclusion is a big LOL! As for the Trinity, the short answer is there is only one God. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Yet there is not three Gods but one God. Three Persons, One Being. Yes, the Bible was written by humans…who were inspired or moved by the Holy Spirit…thus what was penned down was God’s Word to man, what God wanted man to know in order to know God and find salvation.

 

[Frodo]

Or probably Persian folklore - Mithra. Whatever, the Jesus story is based on an earlier divine story. It therefore is unlikely a true account - because it never happened!

Cheers!

Based on an earlier story, you say? Which one to be exact? Please be specific and show the parallels. Do a point by point comparison to see if your story even matches up to the facts. I cannot reiterate enough the point that atheists are very ignorant of the faith that they like to argue against. Armed with misconceptions and ignorance, they only expose themselves as poorly informed and poorly read people who are under the delusion that they are smarter and more intelligent than people who believe in God. Below is a link to a website that can answer most, if not all, of the questions nonbelievers have concerning the faith. Hopefully you will make use of them lah!

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-myth.html

 

[Frodo]

Was looking at the thread title and just couldn't help but be amused by the atheist who fails to see that in the atheist's worldview there is no such thing as truth and falsehood so how can he even talk about deceptions and being deceived? LOL!

 

[drifteri]

People is Post Count Warrior (PCW) but you also Cut & Paste Warrior (CPW)! LOL!

RiverOL, septuagint, beensetfree, we are the Cut & Paste masters. You are stating the obvious, no points for you idiot!

 

[Frodo]

RiverOL, septuagint, beensetfree, we are the Cut & Paste masters. You are stating the obvious, no points for you idiot!

At least they are sharing positive things to encourage believers. You? You are just showcasing your ignorance. LOL!

 

[Agoraphobic]

Both. The story of Jesus was based on both Horus, and Mithra (there were civilisations existing on earth, and believing in their gods before Abraham was spoken to by your God!

http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm

http://www.tomharpur.com/books/paganchrist/

Tom Harpur's "The Pagan Christ" explores the origins of the story of Jesus - in detail. His book cleared the path for many believers, who had been confused by the biblical stories, and they just couldn't accept them. Tom Harpur himself was a clergyman, an Anglican priest, who faced the questions asked by so many in society, that he himself went searching for historical evidence, and concluded that Jesus never existed. The story was man-made. I will not attempt to talk you (or anybody) out of your belief - it is your right, so be it. Just that I cannot accept those things happened as described by the bible.

Of course things outside of logic can occur - if one believes in magic! In this case, your God is a magician. I do not have the answers to all the questions, but I can live with that - that our species still is searching and investigating. We learn more each day. And get wiser, more exposed. We do not wish to depend on an invisible "force" that draws lines and says what is right and wrong for us. If we make mistakes, so let us learn from those mistakes. And not have some authority telling us how we should behave. There may have been a God, but he left. We're on our own.

Cheers!

Based on an earlier story, you say? Which one to be exact? Please be specific and show the parallels. Do a point by point comparison to see if your story even matches up to the facts. I cannot reiterate enough the point that atheists are very ignorant of the faith that they like to argue against. Armed with misconceptions and ignorance, they only expose themselves as poorly informed and poorly read people who are under the delusion that they are smarter and more intelligent than people who believe in God. Below is a link to a website that can answer most, if not all, of the questions nonbelievers have concerning the faith. Hopefully you will make use of them lah!

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-myth.html