The Virgin Birth

[amyhughes]

Amyhughes, are you saying that Mary was immaculately concieved so that she herself was born without original sin? If that is the case, then why is she not considered Divine?

I guess since this is a family board I will be discreet, Here is the wiki on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

 

[daisax]

Divinity implies being a god or goddess -- Catholics don't claim that for Mary.

Holy, sure. Super holy

 

[meeskamouska]

I found this topic very interesting. Thank you to all who have contributed....

 

[amyhughes]

Divinity implies being a god or goddess -- Catholics don't claim that for Mary.

Holy, sure. Super holy

Sorry, in my post I shouldn't have used the word divine. I should have just said "uber Holy"

 

[DisneyWalker44]

Do you believe his writings have remained intact? I know just enough about Josephus as to be very dangerous. And do you distrust his writings on other subjects?

I believe there is a lot of reason to be skeptical of his main few sentences on Jesus. When it comes to earthy or human matters, I'm a bit of a cynic and have really high standards before believing something.

I'm especially cynical on various proofs/evidence/logical arguments to prove God or Jesus is real. They are all weak, often riddled with holes. If God wanted us to have evidence and proof, wouldn't He have given us good unquestionable evidence and proof?

For whatever reason God wants us to have Faith. I believe he specifically wants us to believe in Him absent proof, absent evidence, absent logic and reason. He doesn't want us to believe because of what we see, He wants us to believe in something for which there is no evidence to be seen.

God is real when He is real in our hearts, in our lives. Believe in God because of Faith, not miracles. Miracles can't prove God - otherwise we'd be worshiping David Copperfield (or the '69 Mets).

 

[Mikelly1221]

I believe there is a lot of reason to be skeptical of his main few sentences on Jesus. When it comes to earthy or human matters, I'm a bit of a cynic and have really high standards before believing something.

I'm especially cynical on various proofs/evidence/logical arguments to prove God or Jesus is real. They are all weak, often riddled with holes. If God wanted us to have evidence and proof, wouldn't He have given us good unquestionable evidence and proof?

For whatever reason God wants us to have Faith. I believe he specifically wants us to believe in Him absent proof, absent evidence, absent logic and reason. He doesn't want us to believe because of what we see, He wants us to believe in something for which there is no evidence to be seen.

God is real when He is real in our hearts, in our lives. Believe in God because of Faith, not miracles. Miracles can't prove God - otherwise we'd be worshiping David Copperfield (or the '69 Mets).

Do you question the validity of his other writings on secular events? I'm asking because many people put any writings about Jesus (and the Bible in general) on a much higher "proof" level than other events. They require much more evidence than is required of other events that they accept with less evidence. It would seem to me that if his writings are valid on other subjects, then they should be reliable on the history of Jesus. To my knowledge, Josephus never claimed that he believed Jesus was divine, he just reported what others said and the events surrounding his life. (Again, I don't know much about Josephus, so bear with me on that! )

There is good evidence and proof regarding Christ, who he was, who he claimed to be. A good book that puts the evidence into easy-to-understand format is The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. And I think that a God that is only real in our hearts is no god at all. He either objectively is, or he isn't.

Finally, in the parable about Lazarus & the rich man, Jesus says that even if someone came back from the dead, people still would not believe. Here's the reference to the entire parable: Luke 16:19-31. I'm not sure people would believe if Jesus showed up right in front of them with angels singing.

 

[Mikelly1221]

Regarding the deity of Mary, at the beginning of the Magnificat, Mary says this: "And Mary said: 'My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior'" (Luke 1:46-47). A person who is divine doesn't need a Savior. I know some churches teach that Mary was divine, but I've never found that in the Bible. I'm not sure about her holiness on earth-if she was holy on earth, wouldn't that make her divine? Again, I've never found anything about her holiness in the Bible, but others may differ.

 

[rie'smom]

I'm not sure people would believe if Jesus showed up right in front of them with angels singing.

Ain't that the truth!

Regarding the deity of Mary, at the beginning of the Magnificat, Mary says this: "And Mary said: 'My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior'" (Luke 1:46-47). A person who is divine doesn't need a Savior. I know some churches teach that Mary was divine, but I've never found that in the Bible. I'm not sure about her holiness on earth-if she was holy on earth, wouldn't that make her divine? Again, I've never found anything about her holiness in the Bible, but others may differ.

Yes, Mary is not divine. She is her son's perfect disciple. The RC church doesn't teach that she is divine.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

We had a Pastor when I was younger that used to call Mary the First Disciple because she was the first to say Yes to Jesus. We don't pray to her or anything, but we do believe in Her virginity and that she had a very special role in salvation history.

 

[zagafi]

For those who believe in the New Testament

Luke 1

You realize the synoptic Gospels were written AFTER the resurrection, right?

 

[Mikelly1221]

We had a Pastor when I was younger that used to call Mary the First Disciple because she was the first to say Yes to Jesus. We don't pray to her or anything, but we do believe in Her virginity and that she had a very special role in salvation history.

Exactly. I've heard it said that she was an ordinary lady in extraordinary circumstances. She wouldn't have turned your head on the street or anything (well, maybe Joseph's! ) but she had a heart for God.

 

[Mikelly1221]

Ain't that the truth!



Yes, Mary is not divine. She is her son's perfect disciple. The RC church doesn't teach that she is divine.

The role of Mary in the RCC is something that I know just enough to be dangerous. So, everyone has been warned!

 

[rotlex]

Interesting thread, and subject. My view\belief as a practicing Roman Catholic.

Yes, I believe in the virgin birth, as well as the immaculate conception. How could I not? Think back to the days of the old testament. The Ark of the Covenant etc. The Ark was built with the finest of golds, all but worshiped, designed to carry God's words, and be placed in his temple etc. etc. How could I not believe that God would choose the perfect woman, free from original sin, and a virgin, to carry his only Son? (Viewing Mary as the "new" Ark).

 

[pooh4evr]

I believe I believe.. why .. cause you gotta have faith faith faith-

I can't remember the name of this thing but I heard it the other day on the radio something like You can either believe in God, Jesus, Mary ... all of it- when you die you'll be rewarded - if your wrong (and there isn't anything beyond) you'll never know - but IF you don't believe and there is somrthing else we ll then your "cooked" so to speak

I really enjoy when we can have discussions when nobody gets mad!

 

[daisax]

Do you question the validity of his other writings on secular events?

I have only the vaguest of recollections of this, but I think I do remember that Josephus may have been in the tank for some special interest or another and writing/skewing his observations accordingly. Wherever I heard that, it still acknowledged that his work was valuable, but it put it in the context of his having conflicts of interests in certain areas. (Not even necessarily Jesus -- as I said, I can't recall the particulars)

I can't remember the name of this thing but I heard it the other day on the radio something like You can either believe in God, Jesus, Mary ... all of it- when you die you'll be rewarded - if your wrong (and there isn't anything beyond) you'll never know - but IF you don't believe and there is somrthing else we ll then your "cooked" so to speak

Or you can not believe and there's nothing and no consequences whatsoever, or you can not believe and just maybe there's mercy and you get into glorious Heaven anyway, or there's reincarnation and you come back and work out your issues over eons, or etc. etc. etc.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

Because the Bible was a book written by men and most of the stories came from ancient fables, I consider the whole thing to be a metaphor on life passed along in folkloric form. I do, however, consider myself a Christian.

I believe this was about most if it too. While I do believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, I don't think she remained so her entire life. Hello?! She was married.

Although, in my beliefs, it doesn't really matter if she was or not.

No, it's not possible. Science has proven that. If it was possible, it would have happened again, and been proven objectively, through science.

Kathee

Actually, it can happen. It's called teasing. Or by implantation.

 

[daisax]

While I do believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, I don't think she remained so her entire life. Hello?! She was married.

I imagine God would be a hard act to follow, though.

 

[c4a]

As a believer, I find it hard to believe that anyone would not find the virgin birth plausible.

The hebrew root of "virgin" is "almah". Almah is a young girl protected, covered by her family awaiting marriage. Mary and Joseph were engaged. Engaged is not married.

The immaculate conception is solely faith based. Either one believes that the Lord can/may intervene in someone's life and keep them from original sin or you don't believe it.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

I imagine God would be a hard act to follow, though.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

Do you question the validity of his other writings on secular events? I'm asking because many people put any writings about Jesus (and the Bible in general) on a much higher "proof" level than other events. They require much more evidence than is required of other events that they accept with less evidence. It would seem to me that if his writings are valid on other subjects, then they should be reliable on the history of Jesus.

I think all ancient writings deserve the same level of scrutiny. But that doesn't mean all passages are equally likely to have come through intact. It's possible - likely even - that small passages can be altered within a larger work. It's not all or nothing.