Was Mary a Virgin?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Could you be more specific?

The author is not increduluous at the idea - he's simply saying he cannot find any documented evidence

It doesn't really matter. Forget Mithras. Get on with the other virgin births.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In case you hadn't realised I don't believe in virgin births of any description except at a mythological level.

The point is not whether you believe in virgin births or not. The point is that many of the so-called examples of virgin births in other mythologies are not, in fact, virgin births at all. If you're going to criticise Christianity for copying mythical elements from other cultures, then don't misrepresent those mythologies.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It doesn't really matter. Forget Mithras. Get on with the other virgin births.

BDN:
Please see my last post from previous page.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The point is that many of the so-called examples of virgin births in other mythologies are not, in fact, virgin births at all.

Is this a virgin birth?

"After Zeus had been enchanted by the virgin beauty of Semele, he approached her and made love to her. The fruit of this unison was Dionysus" (http://www.archaeonia.com/religion/cults/dionysian.htm).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
BDN:
Please see my last post from previous page.

So what are these other possibilities?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Zoroaster, Dionysus, Mithras...

Finally Dionysus:

Born of a virgin? Not exactly -- although it depends which of the stories you want to believe. In the most popular story, D's mother was named Semele, and she was impregnated by Zeus when that dirty old god pulled one of his usual tricks by taking the form of a lightning bolt. Later, a jealous Hera tricked Semele into asking Zeus to reveal his glory -- which ended up burning Semele to a crisp, leaving the prenatal Dionysus behind. No absentee father at first, Zeus picked up the child and sewed him into his thigh until he was ready to be on his own. D is thus in a sense "twice born" -- and that is the "Mystery" that Freke and Gandy's source, Harrison, refers to. [Dan.GLE, 65; Harr.PGR, 436] Another story has D as the son of Zeus and Persephone [Dan.GLE, 93; Eva.GE, 153]. Yet another Asiatic version has D self-born. (These last two stories, I have been told, are very obscure.) At any rate, there is clearly nothing like a "virgin" conception or birth here -- what we have is the usual divine fornication that Zeus and other Greek gods were prone to.

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/dionysus.html

The language isn't exactly Victorian prim, but you get the point - Dionysus was born through intercourse.

Another brief article on Semele:

http://www.loggia.com/myth/semele.html

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Is this a virgin birth?

"After Zeus had been enchanted by the virgin beauty of Semele, he approached her and made love to her. The fruit of this unison was Dionysus" (http://www.archaeonia.com/religion/cults/dionysian.htm).

Not if he had intercourse with her.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Finally Dionysus:

[quote]Born of a virgin? Not exactly -- although it depends which of the stories you want to believe. In the most popular story, D's mother was named Semele, and she was impregnated by Zeus when that dirty old god pulled one of his usual tricks by taking the form of a lightning bolt. Later, a jealous Hera tricked Semele into aski ...[text shortened]... rough intercourse.

Another brief article on Semele:

http://www.loggia.com/myth/semele.html

In other words, Zeus made her pregnant. He made another one pregnant by appearing to her in the form of a golden shower. Well, God apparently also made Mary pregnant. Besides, if you wanted your man to be the Son of God, wouldn't you write the story slightly differently?

Here's another one:

Maya, the wife of King Suddhodana, father of Buddha, had a strange dream. A white elephant with six tusks and a lotus blossom in its trunk descended from heaven and slipped into her womb. Thus according to the legend, did Buddha consciously enter Maya’s body.

"She was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit".
"She was found to be with child by Zeus".

What's the difference? What's the Holy Spirit's modus operandi?

If a virgin is artificially inseminated, is she still a virgin?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I heard it claimed that Luke is the only Gospel that describes a virgin birth. None of the others state that Mary is a virgin. Is this the case?

Further, the source from which I heard this explained it by observing that Luke was Greek, and came from a culture in which virgin births were a mythological staple.

Comment.

Mary was a virgin until she had sex, presumably with Joseph.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In other words, Zeus made her pregnant. He made another one pregnant by appearing to her in the form of a golden shower. Well, God apparently also made Mary pregnant. Besides, if you wanted your man to be the Son of God, wouldn't you write the story slightly differently?

Here's another one:

Maya, the wife of King Suddhodana, father of Buddha, ...[text shortened]... oly Spirit's modus operandi?

If a virgin is artificially inseminated, is she still a virgin?

1. From what I've read, Zeus made her pregnant by having physical intercourse with her. Although the author of the Tektonics article talks of "lightning bolts", he doesn't substantiate it and I haven't seen any other source that does.

2. In any case, I'm not saying other mythologies won't have virgin births. If you asked an average man to list out 100 possible miracles, the virgin birth would probably be one of them.

My point is that the most commonly cited suspects (Mithras, Zoroaster and possibly Dionysus) aren't virgin births.

3. What's your source for the Maya story?

4. I don't know what the Holy Spirit's MO was. Whatever it was, it left Mary a virgin.

5. Yes.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. From what I've read, Zeus made her pregnant by having physical intercourse with her. Although the author of the Tektonics article talks of "lightning bolts", he doesn't substantiate it and I haven't seen any other source that does.

2. In any case, I'm not saying other mythologies won't have virgin births. If you asked an average man to li ...[text shortened]... I don't know what the Holy Spirit's MO was. Whatever it was, it left Mary a virgin.

5. Yes.

Wonder what you think of this overview: http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm

Particulary the conclusions based, in part, on the lack of any references to "virgin birth" in either John's Gospel or Paul's writings (and the passages mentioned which imply that there was no belief in a virgin birth among the early Christians).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Wonder what you think of this overview: http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm

Particulary the conclusions based, in part, on the lack of any references to "virgin birth" in either John's Gospel or Paul's writings (and the passages mentioned which imply that there was no belief in a virgin birth among the early Christians).

1. Re: Paul

The first Pauline citation is from Galatians 4. Here's the context:

[1] I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate;
[2] but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father.
[3] So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe.
[4] But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
[5] to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

a. In the context in which he is writing, there is a good theological reason why he should use "woman" rather than "virgin" - he is showing that Christ was born a human being like the rest of us under the consequences of original sin (what he refers to as "the law" here). Using "virgin" here would detract from that point.

b. Nevertheless, he does draw a distinction between the Sonship of Jesus and the adopted sonship of the rest of us. This indicates that he believes Jesus was the begotten Son of God and, therefore, that he would not be the begotten son of Joseph.

The second Pauline citation is from Romans 1:

[1] Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God
[2] which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures,
[3] the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh.

The word used for 'descendant' here is sperma which means, among other things, 'family' or 'tribe'. In fact, Paul uses it in that sense in Gal 3:29, for instance. The word for flesh is sarx which refers to the earthly nature of man. Once again, he is emphasising the point he made in the Gal quote above.

2. Re: John

The first Johannine citation is from John 1:

[44] Now Philip was from Beth-sa'ida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
[45] Philip found Nathan'a-el, and said to him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
[46] Nathan'a-el said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."

Why would Philip think that Jesus was not the son of Joseph?

Similarly with the other citation in John 6:

[41] The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven."
[42] They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, `I have come down from heaven'?"

The mention of John is interesting because of what happens in John 19:

[26] When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
[27] Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

This is strange because Jesus is mentioned to have "brothers" in 2:12. If Mary was not a virgin, and had other sons after Jesus, why would he need to give her over to John (the beloved disciple)?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. Re: Paul

The first Pauline citation is from Galatians 4. Here's the context:

[1] I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate;
[2] but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father.
[3] So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the ele ...[text shortened]... d had other sons after Jesus, why would he need to give her over to John (the beloved disciple)?

There's nothing in the Pauline quotes remotely suggesting a virgin birth (or more accurately virgin conception). If you assume a virgin birth, then you can try to make the words compatible with such a belief but surely you are not claiming that they support such a claim in their specific context. BTW, Christ was a "human being like the rest of us under the consequences of original sin"? I thought he was born without sin.

Why would Philip, a disciple, not know that Jesus wasn't the son of Joseph? Did Jesus never inform the disciples of the virgin birth? if not, where did this information come from to be passed down to later Christians?

What does the second passage supposedly prove? Does the fact that Jesus in essence have John adopt Mary as his own mother mean she had no other offspring? And what would that have to do with the virgin conception anyway?

Originally posted by no1marauder
There's nothing in the Pauline quotes remotely suggesting a virgin birth (or more accurately virgin conception). If you assume a virgin birth, then you can try to make the words compatible with such a belief but surely you are not claiming that they support such a claim in their specific context. BTW, Christ was a "human being like the rest of us under ...[text shortened]... an she had no other offspring? And what would that have to do with the virgin conception anyway?

1.a. They don't directly support it, but there is a hint, yes.
b. "Consequences of original sin" - mortality, suffering etc. I didn't say he was born with original sin.

2.a. Why would Philip, at that point in the narrative, know about Jesus' conception?
b. Mary and the Holy Spirit (Pentecost etc.), presumably.

3.a. Yes, that's precisely what it implies. And that implies that the authors of John were not unmindful of Mary's virginity.
b. It supports the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. If she did not have intercourse after the birth of Jesus, then why would she do so before?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1.a. They don't directly support it, but there is a hint, yes.
b. "Consequences of original sin" - mortality, suffering etc. I didn't say he was born with original sin.

2.a. Why would Philip, at that point in the narrative, know about Jesus' conception?
b. Mary and the Holy Spirit (Pentecost etc.), presumably.

3.a. Yes, that's precisely ...[text shortened]... Mary. If she did not have intercourse after the birth of Jesus, then why would she do so before?

I would say those are amazing hand stands based on very few words.