The Virgin Birth

[Golf4food]

My beliefs:

Mary was a normal human. She was a virgin when she conceived Jesus via God's doing. She did not remain a virgin afterwards (where would the brothers and sisters come from?). She was not sinless herself. In order for that idea to work, both of Mary's parents would have had to have been sinless and immaculately conceived, and their parents, and their parents, and... didn't happen.

 

[Handbag Lady]

I don't believe she was a virgin. I'm an agnostic who was sent to Baptist Sunday school for years. I didn't believe mostly anything they were trying to teach me, anyway.

To me, men wrote the bible, not God. I think that the bible was written in a time frame whereas the people (some who couldn't read at the time, how convenient!) needed to be controlled and given faith to follow church doctrine blindlessly. There is a lot of good that comes from the church and some of it still works today to help mankind. Or hinder it.

 

[wdhinn89]

Technically, the Catholic Church believes she was always a virgin and I was raised Catholic; However, I don't believe she was a virgin her entire life. She was married and it wouldn't have been a healthy marriage if she had remained ever-virgin. I do believe in the Immaculate Conception, however.

I have the same belief.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

Because it shows how all powerful and mighty God really it. That is why its important.

The stories of miracles in the Bible are important to some people - they aren't to me. I believe God is powerful. Therefore, I believe he could have feed thousands with a few fish. I don't start with the story of feeding the masses, and then believe God is powerful because I believe the story. But that's just me.

If the virgin birth is literal, or metaphorical, it doesn't change my view of God. I guess I'm not impressed by miracles. I'm reminded of Moses and Pharaoh. Moses tried to impress Pharaoh with a miracle. Then Pharaoh's magicians did the same thing.

 

[ROIE01581]

It has nothing to do with a virgin birth. It is that Mary was born with out orginal sin. She had to have no sin to be the mother of GOD.

If you are catholic you should know this.

 

[daisax]

She was not sinless herself. In order for that idea to work, both of Mary's parents would have had to have been sinless and immaculately conceived, and their parents, and their parents, and... didn't happen.

The Catholic teaching is that Mary herself was born without sin (the Immaculate Conception is Mary, not Jesus).

 

[SydneyBristow]

I agree with you Marcie. had jesus christ not rose from the dead then he would have been just a really good man who lived and died. Again, God did a spernatural act when Jesus rose from the dead.

For the longest time before I accepted Jesus I use to say he was just a really great guy, great teacher or maybe even just a prophet. I think it's one of Satan's greatest tools to keep people away from the truth. But then after I became a Christian I really thought about it and realized what I claimed before could never be true. He could never be just a good guy, either he was who he said he was, the Son of God and the only way or he's an insane liar. It's one or the other.

I like this from CS Lewis, Mere Christianity-

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.
He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon, or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come away with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

 

[sweetandsassyfl]

It has nothing to do with a virgin birth. It is that Mary was born with out orginal sin. She had to have no sin to be the mother of GOD.

If you are catholic you should know this.

I had twelve years of Catholic education....it had a great deal to do with a virgin birth. However, the Immaculate Conception had to do with the fact that she was born without orginal sin.

 

[Lanshark]

For those who believe in the New Testament

Luke 1

The Birth of Jesus Foretold
26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[c] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."

38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

He could never be just a good guy, either he was who he said he was, the Son of God and the only way or he's an insane liar. It's one or the other.

There are any number of other options - including the very simple notion that perhaps he didn't say everything his followers claim he did.

 

[Galahad]

There are any number of other options - including the very simple notion that perhaps he didn't say everything his followers claim he did.

Except there are contemporaneous records of what he said and did not produced by his followers.

Even if one is not, nor ever will be a believer, I highly recommend reading Mere Christianity.

 

[cheermom1]

how do we know for sure? because the bible says so? how do we know the bibble is true? didn't man write it? so man could have made this up (not saying I don't believe or that I do I just don't know) as one pp said Jesus may not have even said some of the things the bible says he said (one of his followers could have said he said it) who knows, so far I haven't seen any of the mericals that have been described in the bible to be of fact. and we are exspected to just believe - I am not saying I don't believe that their may be a god just that I am haveing a hard time thinking this is all true without any proven facts backing it up that Jesus and Mary are to be who the bible say they are - so no i don't believe at this point that mary was a virgin i mean gasp it did happen in those times that an oops came about can't say it didn't....

 

[DisneyWalker44]

Except there are contemporaneous records of what he said and did not produced by his followers.

There are? Do tell...

 

[Buckalew11]

Cheermom,
To me, that is the beauty of it. God gives us freedom to choose what we want to believe.

Faith is believeing in things that you can't see. If God Himself came down to earth and told us...no wait, I believe that one happened ...uh, if God gave you the proof you wanted, would you then believe? And would that be knowing fact or having faith? I believe God gives us all lots of reasons to believe--we just brush them aside, do not accept them or want more evidence. That probably will not happen.

Yet, even as I say that, I think of how REAL God is to me in my life. Because of my personal experiences, He is fact for me. I have faith still but He is as real to me as anything or any person in my life right now. That is why I, and many other christians tend to to come off saying things like they are fact--to us, God could not be more real.

To me, if an "oops" happened and jesus was passed off as a baby who was the promised Messiah, I'd give it all up right this minute. If I could not believe that Mary was a virgin and Jesus was the Son of God and not Joseph's son, the rest would also be iffy for me and probably a made up lie.

Yet, between God's Holy Word, which I believe IS God inspired (why? because the Bible says so and it seems to me the men who wrote it down have been very careful with it + I think God is powerful enough to sustain His Word) and my personal experiences, I can never deny the presence of God. I think the the Bible tells us the things He wants us to know and it is given to us for a reason. It sure can be applied to life even in 2008, that's for sure!

Anyway, I think as long as you are pondering it, my belief is that God is still working with you on the subject. In the end, the choice is yours but I think it is wonderful that you are discerning for yourself and making a choice. Cause to me, it is all about personal choice (and personal relationship.)

 

[Galahad]

There are? Do tell...

The most prominant was Josephus, a Greek historian who was Jewish and was a contemporary - he wrote of Jesus' acts and those of his followers and he was not a believer, follower or anything like it. There are Roman historians of the time as well.

BTW, I am not concerned about whether you believe Christianity or not. That's none of my business. But the denial that the events ever happened is not a good argument against it. It might be perfectly reasonable to deny the implication of the events, that they really weren't miracles, etc. Even among followers it is a pretty well documented lineage. Ancient historians and literary types (those that attempt to trace the authenticity of ancient writings), many that are not remotely Christians support the contemporaneous writings. Paul earliest writing that survives was written in the same generation after the crucifixion - perhaps within 30 years. And those writings referred to the accounts later compiled into the Gospel books, meaning that though the earliest any of the Gospel material known today (specifically Mark) was "published" was about 70 years after the crucifixion, it existed in written form before that or Paul could not have referred to it.

If you're interested, Garry Wills, a liberal economist and columnist is also a great writer about theological history. He has written three great books - "What Jesus Meant", "What Paul Meant" and "What the Gospels Meant". Very good stuff - not preachy and well argued.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

The most prominant was Josephus, a Greek historian who was Jewish and was a contemporary - he wrote of Jesus' acts and those of his followers and he was not a believer, follower or anything like it. There are Roman historians of the time as well.

Josephus was born in AD 37 - several years after Christ died. He never met Christ, never heard him speak. At best (we can save for another day discussion of whether his writings were altered later on) he reported on what followers of Christ claimed he said.

BTW, I am not concerned about whether you believe Christianity or not.

I am a passionate Christian. I just don't like poor logic. The notion that the only two choices are the Christ was God or a madman is ridiculous.

 

[Galahad]

I am a passionate Christian. I just don't like poor logic. The notion that the only two choices are the Christ was God or a madman is ridiculous.

Neither do I. It's not poor logic to stipulate that he said what he said. If you stipulate that then the only choices are God or madman. If you don't stipulate it then the same logic would lead you someplace else. I think there is enough evidence to stipulate it. From the standards of ancient history and "record keeping", being born only a few years after the events is generally considered contemporary. If the stories were just made up then the tellers didn't really have all that much time to "get the story straight" before it began being written down.

I get your point though.

 

[Catzeyes]

Yes I believe she was a virgin.

 

[Mikelly1221]

Josephus was born in AD 37 - several years after Christ died. He never met Christ, never heard him speak. At best (we can save for another day discussion of whether his writings were altered later on) he reported on what followers of Christ claimed he said.

I am a passionate Christian. I just don't like poor logic. The notion that the only two choices are the Christ was God or a madman is ridiculous.

Just wondering, but how does the fact that he wrote after Jesus's death (and resurrection) challenge his authenticity? Many very highly regarded historians write about people that they have never met. Do you discount his writings on other subjects as well?

I agree with Galahad. Jesus was either highly delusional (a madman), or He was exactly who he claimed to be.

 

[rie'smom]

I believe Mary was a virgin and stayed a virgin. The refernces to siblings in the Bible I was always took as talkng about his followers or frinds. In Church when we pray we say, "And to you my brothers and sisters" that doesn't mean that the 300 people in the building are my actual siblings.