Virgin Birth "Facts"

quote:

Like I said before and will continue to say again and again: All virgin births are hotly debated.

Here is a link to a Krishna forum where followers are debating the subject: Link

It is clear that at least some (most?) Krishna fundamentalists believe he was born of a virgin.

That's not true at all. I went to the forum and read the responses. One guy said that Krishna restored his mother's virginity. The rest pretty much agree that she was not a virgin in the same sense as Mary. You're reading selectively.

quote:

Originally posted by George Sand:

quote:

Originally posted by Skeptik:
Interesting info on the significance of virgin births throughout history. Stolen from the internet so it must be true:

He gave sufficient enough credit for his source, for me, Chaos.

good cheerleader

quote:

So, to re-ask the question that Deep posted (that you ignored): Are you suggesting that the virgin birth of Jesus is the only valid "virgin birth" story that has ever existed?

What is your point in denying all these other stories?

I didn't ignore it, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

My point is to disprove your statements, which I have. You listed several deities as being born of a virgin in the same way Jesus was. When I did some basic research, I found that the claim was untrue. Turns out, you borrowed that from a book, you still haven't told us who the author is. The theory is falling apart, so why are you still trying to defend it?

quote:

Again, the fact that it is not mentioned does not mean Mark did not believe in the virgin birth. It simply proves that Mark didn't write about it.

Some view the omission as equal to omitting the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand from a history of WWI. It's kind of an important fact. One so important that one is forced to consider that perhaps the importance was manufactured at some later date.

On the other hand, it makes perfect sense if you understand that biblical scholars understand that the "virgin birth" part of the story didn't come into being until long after Christianity was established as a religion.

Hi Skeptik,

If it makes you more comfortable denying another aspect of the Gospel: birth, death, resurrection, ascension of Jesus Christ -- so be it. You just keep denying God, Jesus, and all other aspects of deity -- until one day you meet Him face to face. Then, I imagine it will be pretty hard to deny Him; but, of course, at that time it will be too late.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Some view the omission as equal to omitting the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand from a history of WWI. It's kind of an important fact. One so important that one is forced to consider that perhaps the importance was manufactured at some later date.

On the other hand, it makes perfect sense if you understand that biblical scholars understand that the "virgin birth" part of the story didn't come into being until long after Christianity was established as a religion.

That comparison doesn't work, apples and oranges. It wasn't Christ's birth that created Christianity. It's about His teachings, His sacrifice, and His resurrection. Assuming that the virgin birth was added later is pure speculation with no proof at all. For someone who demands proof, why believe it?

quote:

One guy said that Krishna restored his mother's virginity. The rest pretty much agree that she was not a virgin in the same sense as Mary. You're reading selectively.

No, I'm reading it the same as you Nash; Some believe (Insert Deity's Name Here) was born to a virgin, some do not. Some scholars believe Jesus was born of a virgin, some do not.

Some used to claim Alexander the Great and even Caesar were born of virgin or miraculous births.

I don't believe any of them. You only believe in one. I imagine some believe all of them.

Since I believe they ALL are rooted in myth and superstition (and with good reason since they all violate the laws of the universe) then they all, necessarily, will have shaky foundations and ample reason for critical analysis and disbelief.

So, my turn for a question or two: Do you disbelieve some, none or all of the examples I cite (and I hope you will note that I have answered all of your questions honestly and even retracted a statement. So please just choose one [some, none, all] and dont' make me chase you down for an answer)?

quote:

It wasn't Christ's birth that created Christianity. It's about His teachings, His sacrifice, and His resurrection.

Then what they hey are you debating me about?

My original post was simply an educational exercise concerning other virgin birth stories. If it's not important to you, then why have you made 10 posts on the subject?

quote:

No, I'm reading it the same as you Nash; Some believe (Insert Deity's Name Here) was born to a virgin, some do not. Some scholars believe Jesus was born of a virgin, some do not.

Give me an example of a Christian who does not believe in the virgin birth.

I disbelieve all of the examples you provided. No sources were cited, it was simply something taken from the internet. The deities I researched on my own, I didn't take the time to look them all up, had very different information than what was given in the original post that started this thread. The author was wrong on several counts, therefore I see the theory as invalid.

quote:

Assuming that the virgin birth was added later is pure speculation with no proof at all.

And please note that I didn't "assume" anything. I simply provided scholarly speculations from others who have studied the subject.

As always, there is some interesting scholarly-supported speculation on the subject at Wiki: Link

quote:

And please note that I didn't "assume" anything. I simply provided scholarly speculations from others who have studied the subject.

No, you posted an article written by Jocelyn Rhys. No citations, no documentation, just bad theories and misinformation. That's why it's important to double check claims as best as we can. There is a lot of bad info on both sides of the issue, the article you posted that started this thread is just one example of such.

quote:

Do you believe that Krishna's story involves a virgin birth?

I'm no Krishna expert, but I have heard it said
that he is attributed a virgin birth. Casual research supports that.

So, there is reason to believe that the Krishna "story" involves such.

I do not believe that he or anyone else was born to a virgin before scientific methods of artificial insemination came along.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
Give me an example of a Christian who does not believe in the virgin birth.

Will the Arch Bishop of Canterbury do?

Link

quote:

I disbelieve all of the examples you provided.

I do too, Nash. But I mis-phrased the question so allow me to rephrase: Do you believe that the virgin birth of Jesus is the ONLY "true" virgin birth story and that all others are false?

Or are you saying that there ARE no other "virgin birth" stories and everything I posted was manufactured by someone?

quote:

Will the Arch Bishop of Canterbury do?

Go back and read it again.

"He said he was committed to belief in the Virgin Birth “as part of what I have inherited”. But belief in the Virgin Birth should not be a “hurdle” over which new Christians had to jump before they were accepted."

He basically points out the differences in what I call the pop culture Jesus and the scriptural, historical Jesus. Many of the Jesus myths have elements from the pop culture version, of which the Archbishop has debunked.

quote:

I do too, Nash. But I mis-phrased the question so allow me to rephrase: Do you believe that the virgin birth of Jesus is the ONLY "true" virgin birth story and that all others are false?

Or are you saying that there ARE no other "virgin birth" stories and everything I posted was manufactured by someone?

Let's put it this way. I believe the story of Christ's birth is the only true divine birth. The list of deities that Rhys attributed to a virgin birth is not true.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:

quote:

Do you believe that Krishna's story involves a virgin birth?

I'm no Krishna expert, but I have heard it said
that he is attributed a virgin birth. Casual research supports that.

So, there is reason to believe that the Krishna "story" involves such.

I do not believe that he or anyone else was born to a virgin before scientific methods of artificial insemination came along.

DF

The casual research I did turned up that Krishna's mother had seven other kids before him. Some of the Krishna faith believe that he restored his mother's virginity afterwards. Very different from a virgin birth like in the story of Jesus as claimed.

Restored virginity?

I thought only Southern girls did that.


DF

"It didn't count, I was drunk."

Nash,

Check this out. And remember, the stuff in the blue boxes was written hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Link

DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
Restored virginity?

I thought only Southern girls did that.


DF

"It didn't count, I was drunk."

Hahahaha!!!! I don't want that back!

Nash,

Look, it's easy to get hornswaggled into side-debates that really have nothing to do with the actual point. The actual point is this:

Virgins can't give birth to babies, dude. The whole virginity thing is simply a theatrical convention used to portray importance unto a character.

I know that is a shock to the fundamentalist mind but it is true. God doesn't "do" girls while they sleep and if he did, you must accept that he has a Thing for teenage girls.

Do you really unravel that thread? Would not it simply be more faithful to say that the whole virginity thing is a allegory or just plain mystery?

If you faith so weak that you deny reality itself just to make it more real to you?

quote:

Originally posted by Skeptik: Nash,

Look, it's easy to get hornswaggled into side-debates that really have nothing to do with the actual point. The actual point is this:

Virgins can't give birth to babies, dude. The whole virginity thing is simply a theatrical convention used to portray importance unto a character. I know that is a shock to the fundamentalist mind but it is true. God doesn't "do" girls while they sleep and if he did, you must accept that he has a Thing for teenage girls. Do you really unravel that thread? Would not it simply be more faithful to say that the whole virginity thing is a allegory or just plain mystery? If you faith so weak that you deny reality itself just to make it more real to you?

Hi Skeptik,

When one considers that God created the heavens and the earth, all the universe, by speaking it into existence; I don't see how implanting a fertilized seed into the virgin Mary is such a hard thing for Him to do.

After all, look at the amazing things God did with the universe; look at the amazing things He did on our earth; look at the amazing creation He did when He created man -- with all the intricate microscopic engines, cells, organs, eyes, nerves, miles of blood arteries, a heart that beats continually and most often does not wear out. Wow! He did all of this -- and you think a wee task of divine artificial insemination would strain His abilities? Give me a break!

You ask, "If you faith so weak that you deny reality itself just to make it more real to you?"

Although, I really believe you meant to ask, "IS you faith so weak that you deny reality itself just to make it more real to you?"

And, I must ask, "IS your faith in your science so weak that you have to invent ways to deny God? IS your faith in your science so weak that you are afraid to allow it to stand alongside Creation in the classrooms? Are your educators so weak that even the mention of God, Jesus, the Bible, Creation -- has them running to the bathroom?"

No, my Friend, our FAITH is strong -- and that is why we must continue to be on the Religion Forum to refute the misinformation which atheists always try to plant -- to support their weakening belief in evolution and the associated sciences. We share the Truth, the Light of the Bible, to offset the darkness of atheism. And, God willing, we will be here a long time shining the Light of Jesus Christ upon the Religion Forum for all to read.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:

When one considers that God created the heavens and the earth, all the universe, by speaking it into existence; I don't see how implanting a fertilized seed into the virgin Mary is such a hard thing for Him to do.

After all, look at the amazing things God did with the universe; look at the amazing things He did on our earth; look at the amazing creation He did when He created man -- with all the intricate microscopic engines, cells, organs, eyes, nerves, miles of blood arteries, a heart that beats continually and most often does not wear out. Wow! He did all of this -- and you think a wee task of divine artificial insemination would strain His abilities? Give me a break!

And not one amputee healed....

quote:

And not one amputee healed...

Why should God heal an amputee?

A lack of limbs never stopped this guy.

Link

Or this one.

Link

This bass player only has one arm, he's better than most two armed players.

Link

A guitar player with no arms at all.

Link

I could keep going and going. The reason God doesn't heal amputees, He doesn't have to. Amputees can have a successful life with or without limbs.

It's more of a testimony that an amputee can live a fulfilled life, accomplishing just as much if not more than someone with all of their limbs.

quote:

Originally posted by 8I:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
When one considers that God created the heavens and the earth, all the universe, by speaking it into existence; I don't see how implanting a fertilized seed into the virgin Mary is such a hard thing for Him to do.

After all, look at the amazing things God did with the universe; look at the amazing things He did on our earth; look at the amazing creation He did when He created man -- with all the intricate microscopic engines, cells, organs, eyes, nerves, miles of blood arteries, a heart that beats continually and most often does not wear out. Wow! He did all of this -- and you think a wee task of divine artificial insemination would strain His abilities? Give me a break!

And not one amputee healed....

HOW CAN YOU BE SURE?

Nash,

You've avoided Skep's rude intrusion of reality into this conversation.

Virgins don't give birth. Never did, until modern science made it possible through artificial insemination, and even then, most of those women tried the traditional approach first.

Is it truly likely that Mary was a real virgin, or that it is a story designed to make Jesus as good a prophet or god-on-Earth as good as the next?

It's absurd and asinine, and you know it.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
It's more of a testimony that an amputee can live a fulfilled life, accomplishing just as much if not more than someone with all of their limbs.

8I, don't do it man. Nash is just joking, I'm sure. The world likes you just fine with both arms. No point in trying to make things better by cutting one off.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
Nash,

You've avoided Skep's rude intrusion of reality into this conversation.

Virgins don't give birth. Never did, until modern science made it possible through artificial insemination, and even then, most of those women tried the traditional approach first.

Is it truly likely that Mary was a real virgin, or that it is a story designed to make Jesus as good a prophet or god-on-Earth as good as the next? It's absurd and asinine, and you know it.
DF

ONLY TO THOSE WHO ARE SPIRITUALLY DEAF, DUMB, AND BLIND!

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
Nash,

You've avoided Skep's rude intrusion of reality into this conversation.

Virgins don't give birth. Never did, until modern science made it possible through artificial insemination, and even then, most of those women tried the traditional approach first.

Is it truly likely that Mary was a real virgin, or that it is a story designed to make Jesus as good a prophet or god-on-Earth as good as the next?

It's absurd and asinine, and you know it.

DF

I didn't avoid it, I answered his question which you also asked.

If Jesus could be resurrected, which He was, then I have no reason not to believe the account of a virgin birth.

The reality is that the attempts to paint the story of Christ as a recycled story always fall flat. It just takes a little skepticism and research for them to completely fall apart.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
If Jesus could be resurrected, which He was,

then

quote:

It just takes a little skepticism and research for them to completely fall apart.

Nash will not see the ironic dichotomy of those two statements.

Nash, really, virgins don't give birth and zombies are only in the movies. Really. Seriously. Anyone who can rationally evaluate evidence and knows a little about the fundamental laws of the universe can see this.

For crying out loud, Nash, you are a college graduate. You KNOW these things.

Again and as always, your attempts to scientifically and rationally "prove" matters of pure faith make you look like a fool.

Another interesting virgin birth story form Wiki:

"Some interpretations of the life story of the Buddha attribute his birth to a virgin birth. This is likely due to a specific interpretation of the prophetic dream Queen Māyā is said to have had prior to conception and is not a widely held view amongst Buddhists. As she is described to have been married to King Śuddhodhana for many years, there is no indication that she would have been a virgin at the time of Siddhārtha's conception, but the conception of the Buddha is often held to have occurred without sexual activity. Nonetheless, this interpretation has led to parallels being drawn with the birth story of Jesus.

The story of the birth of the Buddha was known in the West, and possibly influenced the story of the birth of Jesus.

Saint Jerome (4th century CE) mentions the birth of the Buddha, who he says "was born from the side of a virgin". Also a fragment of Archelaos of Carrha (278 CE) mentions the Buddha's virgin-birth.

Other interesting parallels in the birth stories include:

* The similarity in the sounds of the names of Mary (Aramaic: מרים, Maryām) and Maya.
* Maya conceived during a dream, Mary conceived around the time of a visitation from an angel.
* Both women gave birth "outside" of a home.
* Heavenly wonders appeared in the sky.
* Heavenly beings (angels or devas) announced the newborn as "savior" of the world.
* Sages came to visit the newborn and make prophecies of auspicious careers.

quote:

Nash will not see the ironic dichotomy of those two statements.

Nope. I was skeptical of God's existence and Jesus' resurrection. So I did the research, studied, and found evidence that proved it to be true. People do that all the time, that's why a large number of Christians are former non-believers.

quote:

So I did the research, studied, and found evidence that proved it to be true.

Translation: "I did the research from a purely scientific, historical standpoint and empirically determined that zombies are real, human biology allows for spontaneous pregnancy and the creator of the universe prefers teenage girls."

This is not a rational stance, Nash.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
....
The reality is that the attempts to paint the story of Christ as a recycled story always fall flat. It just takes a little skepticism and research for them to completely fall apart.

wow. i respect you a lot, nash, but those are two ridiculous sentences.

i think it is the acceptance of bizarre tales like virgin births by otherwise rational people that make me certain i don't want any part of this mythology. this is the type of belief that would get you labelled 'deluded' if you were applying it to any situation outside of the institution of the church. it's nuts, imo.

Hoss,

You are so right. To assert that the virgin birth myth started and ended with Jesus is just silly and nonacademic.

To actually believe it is rather spooky, isn't it?


DF

When talking about the creator of the universe, a virgin birth is almost anti-climactic.

JMHO

Joy,

very good point. why was it necessary? And why was a human sacrifice necessary?


DF

This is my opinion, which is subject to change with new information.

Jesus existed in Heaven before he was given to Mary. He gave up his deity to be a man and be the sacrifice for man's sins. He wasn't Joseph's son. He was God's son.

The sacrifice has to do with life blood, life over death, the blood of life victorious over death. The blood offered in the Old Testament was not sufficient because it was not a perfect sacrifice. Jesus, being sinless, was. His life blood, his life period, being pure and without blemish, covered all sin for all time.

Hi all,

Why are we all getting all wrapped up in the virgin birth? Let us just say that Jesus was born to Mary -- who had not known man. Call it what you like.

We know that He lay aside His divine nature and became man to be our atonement. Yet, at the same time He was still fully God and fully Man.

The really important issues are: (1) Jesus died on the cross. That is a historical fact. We Christians know that He did this to atone for the sin of the world; to offer salvation to everyone who will, by grace through faith, receive this free gift.

And, (2) He resurrected -- and appeared to over 500 people. When the Gospels were written; many of those people were still alive. Don't you think they would have raised some eyebrows if this were not true?

And, (3) He ascended into heaven where He sits at the right hand of God the Father, interceding for all believers continually.

No other holy man -- not Buddha, not Muhammed, not Joseph Smith -- no one else has resurrected. They are all still in their graves awaiting their resurrection -- at which time they will be raised in their immortal bodies to stand before the Great White Throne Judgment of Jesus Christ.

So, nitpick all you like about Buddha and all your other proofs of virgin births. Only Jesus went to the cross for us; only Jesus resurrected from the dead for us; only Jesus ascended into heaven to be our intercessor before God the Father.

That, my Friends, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

but that makes it originally about bloodthirstiness and retribution. you get down to it, someone still has to 'pay' for god to love you!

even lowly human parents don't require that.

there are just too many things that don't make sense and that are not even moral for me to understand why people adhere to this belief system. don't get me wrong, i think there is good in christianity, but the same can be said for all religions, i think.

if god requires you to overlook and forgive him for his mean past and the bad things he did, i don't see why he would expect better from you.

i'm out. we all know we aren't going to convince each other, anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by hoss gal:

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
....
The reality is that the attempts to paint the story of Christ as a recycled story always fall flat. It just takes a little skepticism and research for them to completely fall apart.

wow. i respect you a lot, nash, but those are two ridiculous sentences.

i think it is the acceptance of bizarre tales like virgin births by otherwise rational people that make me certain i don't want any part of this mythology. this is the type of belief that would get you labelled 'deluded' if you were applying it to any situation outside of the institution of the church. it's nuts, imo.

When I first started discussion religion on these forums, I asked people to make me an atheist again. I try to look at all arguments objectively. I've had to answer some tough questions and research some very good points made. In the end, I find that there is evidence for the Biblical claims.

When statements are made that Egyptian gods were crucified and Krishna was born to a virgin the same way Jesus was, it doesn't take much research to find out those claims are false. So why would any reasonable person believe them?

I've learned quite a bit in my discussions here, there are some very intelligent people here and I have to work hard to keep up with them. However, instead of becoming an atheist again, my faith in God has increased. I wasn't attending any church when I started on this forum, I am now. I rarely opened the Bible when I started, I read it much more often now. I try to follow the evidence where it leads and I'm farther from atheism now than when I started.

So I stand by my statement. If you are truly skeptical, meaning you search for truth and not for confirmation of what you already believe is the truth, you'll find it. Things that are not true simply can't stand up to objective research.