Why do Christians think Mary was a virgin?

[septimus]

... or do they?

Why do Christians believe the Mother of Jesus was a virgin? Do all sects believe it? (We've had various threads on questions of Biblical historicity lately; why not this one?)

Paul never said she was a virgin, Mark never said she was a virgin, John never said she was a virgin. Jesus bled like a human, slept like a human, ate like a human, presumably excreted like a human; why couldn't he have been conceived like a human?

Matthew and Luke mention Mary's virginity briefly (and in self-contradiction: Jesus couldn't have been of the "House of David" if he didn't have a human father). Some say the virginity claims were later additions to appeal to Romans, who had their own myths connecting divine birth and virginity.

I'll stipulate that Joseph might have had a dream to assuage disappointment at finding his bride pregnant, but where's the paper trail? Did someone approach a Gospel writer 100 years later, saying "My great granddad once told me about this dream he had?"

I am not trying to ridicule anyone's religion; my question is sincere. Many Christians accept stories like Garden of Eden as metaphors, yet the Virginity of Mary often seems to be a central plank of Christianity. Yet it is implausible, mentioned in the Gospels only briefly (and among the Nativity "embellishments"), ignored by Paul, etc.

[Oakminster]

I think that's mostly a Catholic thing. I'm no biblical scholar, but I think Mark6:3 (http://bible.cc/mark/6-3.htm) mentions Jesus having siblings, which suggests to me that Mary did not stay a virgin.

[clairobscur]

I think that's mostly a Catholic thing. I'm no biblical scholar, but I think Mark6:3 (http://bible.cc/mark/6-3.htm) mentions Jesus having siblings, which suggests to me that Mary did not stay a virgin.

I believe the OP is refering to Mary being a virgin when Jesus was conceived, which is indeed a belief generally held by all Christians (and Muslims as well, actually).

[njtt]

I have always been a bit confused over whether she is just supposed to have been a virgin before God the F did the nasty - i.e. He was her first - or still be one after Jesus was conceived. If the latter, does that mean G the F has some sort of ghostly dong that can go right through a hymen without breaking it? (I imagine He has got to be pretty well endowed, right?)

How about after giving birth? I guess it depends on your definition of virginity, but for anyone to claim to be a virgin after squeezing a baby out of there, no matter how it got conceived, does seem quite a stretch (no pun intended).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The doctrine of perpetual virginity (that it stayed intact even after the birth and that Joseph never got in there) is just a Catholic thing. That part's not in the Bible, though, and the gospels say unambiguously that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

[TNWPsycho]

Not really Christian, but its really close and gaining steam. The Urantia Book says Jesus was conceived just like everybody else.

[Simplicio]

IIRC, there was a Jewish tradition that the Messiah would be a virgin birth arising from a mistranslation of a OT verse. So, like a lot of features of the Gospels, it was probably an attempt to shoehorn Jesus's life into the previous messianic prophecies.

As to why its emphasized so much in some Christian sects, I suspect its because the cult of Mary is popular with a lot of Christians (presumably because there aren't a lot of other biblical females to fill the niche), and being a pregnant virgin is something that sets Mary apart from normal humans.

[Der Trihs]

As to why its emphasized so much in some Christian sects, I suspect its because the cult of Mary is popular with a lot of Christians (presumably because there aren't a lot of other biblical females to fill the niche), and being a pregnant virgin is something that sets Mary apart from normal humans.
I expect the common among Christians (and others) attitudes that sex is evil and that virginity = purity have a lot to do with it too.

[Simplicio]

I expect the common among Christians (and others) attitudes that sex is evil and that virginity = purity have a lot to do with it too.

A good point. And the development of the concept of Original Sin gave the virgin birth a deeper theological significance then the more mundane miracles of the New Testament, which is probably another reason for its heavy emphasis.

Indeed, Mary's virginity was so important that not only do Catholics believe she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, and somehow remained a virgin for the rest of her life (poor Joseph), but that she herself was "immaculately conceived" (which I always assumed meant she was a virgin birth as well, but actually googling, I can't find that stated explicitly anywhere).

[Captain Amazing]

Indeed, Mary's virginity was so important that not only do Catholics believe she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, and somehow remained a virgin for the rest of her life (poor Joseph), but that she herself was "immaculately conceived" (which I always assumed meant she was a virgin birth as well, but actually googling, I can't find that stated explicitly anywhere).

No. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception means that she was conceived and born without Original Sin, but not that she was the product of a virgin birth herself. (In fact, Catholic tradition says explictly that she wasn't, and even names her parents as Sts. Joachim and Anne).

[kaylasdad99]

The doctrine of perpetual virginity (that it stayed intact even after the birth and that Joseph never got in there) is just a Catholic thing. That part's not in the Bible, though, and the gospels say unambiguously that Jesus had brothers and sisters.Don't be too quick to discount people's ability to find ambiguity in the "unambiguous," especially when the preservation of an axiomatic tenet is at stake.

"Brother" means "cousin."

"Wine" means "grape juice."

"Young girl" means "virgin."

That kind of thing.

[Chronos]

You answered the question yourself in the OP: Christians believe that Mary was a virgin because the Gospels (at least, the two which address the point of Jesus' birth) say that she was a virgin. What's so complicated about that?

Quoth njtt:I have always been a bit confused over whether she is just supposed to have been a virgin before God the F did the nasty - i.e. He was her first - or still be one after Jesus was conceived. If the latter, does that mean G the F has some sort of ghostly dong that can go right through a hymen without breaking it? (I imagine He has got to be pretty well endowed, right?)
The midwife attending at Jesus' birth was surprised to find that Mary's hymen was still intact, so it's not just that God was Mary's first. Whether you interpret that as meaning that God's dong is ghostly or that the semen was just teleported into her or what isn't addressed in the Bible.

[septimus]

You answered the question yourself in the OP: Christians believe that Mary was a virgin because the Gospels (at least, the two which address the point of Jesus' birth) say that she was a virgin. What's so complicated about that?

Duuh. :confused: I mentioned a wide belief that Eden was metaphor. My question seeks to compare relative belief in implausibilities.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

You answered the question yourself in the OP: Christians believe that Mary was a virgin because the Gospels (at least, the two which address the point of Jesus' birth) say that she was a virgin. What's so complicated about that?

The midwife attending at Jesus' birth was surprised to find that Mary's hymen was still intact, so it's not just that God was Mary's first. Whether you interpret that as meaning that God's dong is ghostly or that the semen was just teleported into her or what isn't addressed in the Bible.

Just for clarification, are you saying the hymen-and-midwife bit appears in the Gospels?

[Thudlow Boink]

Matthew and Luke mention Mary's virginity brieflyI'd say it's more than just briefly. Here are the relevant passages:18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.The bit about fulfilling the prophecy is a reference to the OT verse that Simplicio mentions.

Verse 25 seems to clearly indicate, contrary to Roman Catholic belief, that Mary and Joseph Did It after Jesus was born. Cecil weighs in here. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1338/did-jesus-have-siblings)
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He 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, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

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

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”

38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

In my understanding, the Virgin Birth is important to Christians because of the Incarnation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation_(Christianity)): the standard Christian belief that, in Jesus, God became a human being (as the gospel of John puts it, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us")." Christian doctrine insists that, from birth, Jesus was fully divine and fully human. (Could he have been fully divine in the sense that orthodox Christianity insists if he had had a human father as well as mother? I don't know, but for those who answer No to that question, I can certainly understand why they insist on the Virgin Birth.)

[FriarTed]

Just for clarification, are you saying the hymen-and-midwife bit appears in the Gospels?

It's actually in the Apocryphal Gospel of Mary AKA The ProtoEvangelium of James, not the Biblical Gospels. As Rufus might say "To believe that Jesus was conceived by a Divine miracle is a matter of faith. To believe that He just transported out without breaking the hymen, that's just stupid."

[Thudlow Boink]

Quoth njtt:The midwife attending at Jesus' birth was surprised to find that Mary's hymen was still intact, so it's not just that God was Mary's first. Whether you interpret that as meaning that God's dong is ghostly or that the semen was just teleported into her or what isn't addressed in the Bible.

Just for clarification, are you saying the hymen-and-midwife bit appears in the Gospels?I think you've been whoosed. Either that, or Chronos is confusing something he heard somewhere else with the Biblical account. No, there's nothing in the Bible about a midwife or a hymen at Jesus's birth.

And, while the Bible doesn't go into detail as to how Jesus's conception occured, my understanding is that we're not supposed to think of it as an act of sexual intercourse between the Holy Spirit and Mary. Jews and Christians don't go in for those gods-having-sex-with-mortals shenanigans that the pagan deities were known for.

[Heyoka13]

Matthew 1:24-25

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.




Scripture does not seem to record if God was a tough act to follow . . . .



BTW, this is pretty clear, beyond clear, actually, that Mary did the deed with Joseph, so where do the Catholics get the perpetual virginity 'thing'?

To go further here, did the Catholic Church ever have the discussion as to whether or not they would observe Biblical Inerrancy and Biblical Literalism ?

We already have the answer to that (they wouldn't), but does any Church teaching or policy, or stricture or edict address why they are not Literalist and Inerranticists?

[kanicbird]

No. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception means that she was conceived and born without Original Sin, but not that she was the product of a virgin birth herself. (In fact, Catholic tradition says explictly that she wasn't, and even names her parents as Sts. Joachim and Anne).

This I believe is a strong part of it, she was exempt from original sin which is very important. How I see it:

(* indicated from scriptures)

Premise for next paragraph: Mary was/is the female Jesus figure. Scriptures talk mostly of men, which I believe is due to the sin of Eve, which placed her in submission*. Whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven*. And man is the image of God*.

Man has a counterpart, women, who man is made to be one with, God would also need a female counterpart - this I believe is what we call creation. But since the serpent deceived Eve, Eve was placed in submission, so that also bound creation (Mother God) in submission, therefore we only have Father God for now, Mother needs the redemption of her daughters to re-obtain equal status (because what is bound on earth is bound in heaven), and that's why we don't hear about Mother God in scriptures. Our patriotically society is due to the serpent deception of Eve, not God's preferred plan, but one He mediated for us * due to what happened with Adam and Eve.

Jesus, the perfect Son would also need a female counterpart, that of Mary, also sinless, though because of the role of women, we wouldn't hear much about her in that capacity. Jesus would have to fulfill the curse on Adam (in Gen 3), basically work hard then die, Mary would have to fulfill the curse on Eve (bear a child in pain). If it was just Jesus alone there would be no redemption for the curse upon Eve, as Jesus could not bear a child.


The virginity of Mary I believe stems from what the scriptures say numerous times say about the redeemed, that God will make one as a virgin, meaning as if they never sinned. It isn't necessarily physical sex, but spiritually combining yourself with another evil entity (choosing to follow the advice of the little devil sitting on your shoulder instead of that little angel sitting on the other shoulder).

How Jesus was conceived. It is very possible that He could have been placed there, but I believe it was done by a high angel, meaning that Jesus was a nephlium, a hybrid. That angel would be of God, unfallen, and therefore exempt from original sin.

How does that tie in with the house of David? David is associated with 'mighty men' a term used for the nephlium*, as well as having the wisdom of angels*. We know David has many wives*, perhaps he was also having supernatural affairs and wifes. The star of David has been linked to Kaballa <sp>, basically a belief that the star is a supernatural portal, 2 interlocking spinning pyramids, one a portal to heaven the other to earth. David may have had access to the heavens. That chain of lineage would also have to have a physical counterpart on earth, therefore a human lineage or in this case 2.

[Odesio]

I expect the common among Christians (and others) attitudes that sex is evil and that virginity = purity have a lot to do with it too.

Christians were hardly the only religious people that placed a certain value on virginity.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

IIRC, there was a Jewish tradition that the Messiah would be a virgin birth arising from a mistranslation of a OT verse. So, like a lot of features of the Gospels, it was probably an attempt to shoehorn Jesus's life into the previous messianic prophecies.
Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 - the infamous Immanuel passage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14). The Greek LXX translation used by Matthew mistranslated the Hebrew word, almah ("young woman") as parthenon, ("virgin"), but more significanly the passage in question is not a Messianic prophecy anyway, but refers to the son of King Ahaz. Within the context of the story in Isaiah, the kid isn't even anything special but is just used as a marker for the time that the enemies of Ahaz will be destroyed. "Immanuel" is not the Messiah, and the prophecy is fulfilled in the next chapter. The Immanuel passage was never seen as a Messianic prophecy either before or after Christianity, and there has never been any expectation that the Jewish Messiah will be born of a virgin, and, as has been pointed out, a virgin birth would disqualify anyone as the Messiah anyway since the Messiah has to be descended from David specifically through his father (and through his father and his father, etc).

Why Matthew and Luke chose to make Mary a virgin, I don't think we have a clear answer for (a misunderstanding of the LXX would explain Matthew but not Luke), but it didn't come from any Jewish tradition or expectation. It probably had more to do with Classical Greco-Roman motifs of demi-gods, and gods consorting with human women.

[FriarTed]

It probably had more to do with Classical Greco-Roman motifs of demi-gods, and gods consorting with human women.

Except that the story is nothing like the Classical demi-gods story & more akin to the miraculous tho not virginal conceptions by barren Israelite women such as Sarah, Rachel and Hannah.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The whole idea of a half human/half god baby is totally Greco-Roman and not remotely Jewish, though.

[Captain Amazing]

This I believe is a strong part of it, she was exempt from original sin which is very important. How I see it:


Just for the record, while all that is how you see it, none of it is Catholic doctrine. In Catholic doctrine, Jesus wasn't a "nephlium". He was fully God and at the same time, fully human, and unique, in that it was the first and only time God manifested Himself as a human being, and the Being, through which Mary was conceived was no angel, but the Holy Spirit Himself.

[CPomeroy]

Doesn't Zoroastrianism also have a virgin birth? I had a philosophy teacher that referred to Christianity as "warmed over Zoroastrianism" because of this and other elements that Christianity allegedly borrowed.

[Skammer]

I expect the common among Christians (and others) attitudes that sex is evil and that virginity = purity have a lot to do with it too. "Sex is evil" is not part of any mainstream Christian doctrine, with the possible exception of the Shakers (which is why they're not around anymore). Christians tend to value chastity, but also celibrate sex within the context of marriage. Please point to any Christian source that claims sex is evil regardless of context.

Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 - the infamous Immanuel passage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14). The Greek LXX translation used by Matthew mistranslated the Hebrew word, almah ("young woman") as parthenon, ("virgin"), but more significanly the passage in question is not a Messianic prophecy anyway, but refers to the son of King Ahaz. Within the context of the story in Isaiah, the kid isn't even anything special but is just used as a marker for the time that the enemies of Ahaz will be destroyed. "Immanuel" is not the Messiah, and the prophecy is fulfilled in the next chapter. Those are not mutually exclusive. Many if not most OT prophecies recognized by Chrisitans were not intended to be messianic prophecies at the time. There is no contradiction in saying the passage referred to the son of Ahaz and was divine prophecy of the future messiah. The Immanuel passage was never seen as a Messianic prophecy either before or after Christianity, and there has never been any expectation that the Jewish Messiah will be born of a virgin, and, as has been pointed out, a virgin birth would disqualify anyone as the Messiah anyway since the Messiah has to be descended from David specifically through his father (and through his father and his father, etc). That's the Jewish interpretation of that passsage, but needless to say Christians have re-interpreted the passage going all the way back to the Gospels themselves.

Why Matthew and Luke chose to make Mary a virgin, I don't think we have a clear answer for (a misunderstanding of the LXX would explain Matthew but not Luke), but it didn't come from any Jewish tradition or expectation. It probably had more to do with Classical Greco-Roman motifs of demi-gods, and gods consorting with human women. If it's a myth without a factual basis, I agree it probably arises from the mistranslation. Luke probably heard the story from a source that made the same mistake as Matthew.

[ITR champion]

Doesn't Zoroastrianism also have a virgin birth?
Nope. (http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.html)
I had a philosophy teacher that referred to Christianity as "warmed over Zoroastrianism" because of this and other elements that Christianity allegedly borrowed.
I you ever run into this philosophy teacher again, inform him that (a) we have virtually no evidence of Zoroastrianism being present in Palestine in the first century, hence no way that the early Christians could have copied from it, and (b) we know very little about Zoroastrian beliefs in the early centuries. The chief source we have is a collection of texts known as the Avesta, written several centuries after the founding of Christianity. Hence, if the few slim similarities between the two religions aren't best explained by coincidence, it was probably the Zoroastrians borrowing elements from Christianity and not the other way around.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Those are not mutually exclusive. Many if not most OT prophecies recognized by Chrisitans were not intended to be messianic prophecies at the time.
If they weren't intended as Messianic prohecies by the authors, then they weren't Messianic prophecies. There is no "at the time." Authorial intent doesn't change over time, and Isaiah 7:14 clearly has no Messianic intent, then, now or ever.
There is no contradiction in saying the passage referred to the son of Ahaz and was divine prophecy of the future messiah.
How is that not a contradiction?
That's the Jewish interpretation of that passsage, but needless to say Christians have re-interpreted the passage going all the way back to the Gospels themselves.
Christians can reinterpret it all they want, but their interpretations cannot change the original authorial intent. I can believe that Citizen Kane is really all about me, but that doesn't make it so.

[Captain Amazing]

How is that not a contradiction?


If you believe that God inspired the prophecy, there's nothing stopping it applying on a literal level to Ahaz, and on a figurative or hidden level to a future messiah. The author is Isaiah, but the author is also God.

Christianity isn't the only religion to believe in teachings that both have an obvious meaning and a hidden meaning.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Nope. (http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.html)

I you ever run into this philosophy teacher again, inform him that (a) we have virtually no evidence of Zoroastrianism being present in Palestine in the first century, hence no way that the early Christians could have copied from it, and (b) we know very little about Zoroastrian beliefs in the early centuries. The chief source we have is a collection of texts known as the Avesta, written several centuries after the founding of Christianity. Hence, if the few slim similarities between the two religions aren't best explained by coincidence, it was probably the Zoroastrians borrowing elements from Christianity and not the other way around.
Not exactly an objective source, is it?

[Skammer]

If they weren't intended as Messianic prohecies by the authors, then they weren't Messianic prophecies. There is no "at the time." Authorial intent doesn't change over time, and Isaiah 7:14 clearly has no Messianic intent, then, now or ever.

How is that not a contradiction?

Christians can reinterpret it all they want, but their interpretations cannot change the original authorial intent. I can believe that Citizen Kane is really all about me, but that doesn't make it so. The author's intent is irrelevent - the author does not have to know they are prophesying. Genesis and the Psalms are full of Messianic prophecy, too, that were unintentional by the author(s).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Nope. (http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.html)

I you ever run into this philosophy teacher again, inform him that (a) we have virtually no evidence of Zoroastrianism being present in Palestine in the first century, hence no way that the early Christians could have copied from it, and (b) we know very little about Zoroastrian beliefs in the early centuries. The chief source we have is a collection of texts known as the Avesta, written several centuries after the founding of Christianity. Hence, if the few slim similarities between the two religions aren't best explained by coincidence, it was probably the Zoroastrians borrowing elements from Christianity and not the other way around.
The Zoroastrian influences on Christianity are indirect and come through that religion's influence on Judaism after the Babylonian exile.

Some of the elements of Judaism and Christianity that come from Zorastrianism include the eschatological view of time, the belief in a an end of the world, resurrection of the dead and day of judgement, the belief in a cosmological battle between forces of "good and evil," and the belief in an evil anti-God/"Satan" type figure opposed to the "good" God.


You're completely wrong on your dating of the Avestas, by the way. Most scholars date the oldest parts linguistically to the 2nd millenium BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster#Date), over a thousand years before Christianity, and several hundred years before Judaism.

By the way, JP Holding is an absolute joke of a cite.

[cosmosdan]

From my understanding of Christian doctrine and hearing evangelical preachers

When Adam ate the forbidden fruit and learned of good and evil sin entered God's creation and with it, physical and spiritual death for all mankind. God cannot tolerate any sin, so even the best among us were doomed to physical and spiritual death. But God so loved the world, etc.

For Jesus sacrifice to be able to conquer death and for fulfillment of prophecies, it was necessary for Jesus to be without sin, and born of a virgin. Jesus conquered death and redeemed all mankind who believe and accept God's gift of his only son.
I've heard several protestant preachers link virgin birth to Jesus being without sin and thus able to be a sacrifice to redeem all mankind.
I'd never heard the Mary was without sin as well , doctrine but it's linked to the same theology.

Doesn't really make sense to me but there it is.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

From my understanding of Christian doctrine and hearing evangelical preachers

When Adam ate the forbidden fruit and learned of good and evil sin entered God's creation and with it, physical and spiritual death for all mankind. God cannot tolerate any sin, so even the best among us were doomed to physical and spiritual death. But God so loved the world, etc.

But, as per this thread, God can already make it so Mary gets born without original sin, right?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

For the record, Original Sin is not in the Bible.

[XT]

I always thought it was a translation error. Stuff translated from Hebrew to Greek and then to, say, Latin, loses quite a bit in the process. IIRC, it had to do with the Greek word for young woman and possibly virgin (sorry, I don't remember exactly what the issue was anymore...it's been a long time). Of course, I could be completely mis-remembering or completely conflating the whole thing, so grain of salt.

-XT

[cosmosdan]

But, as per this thread, God can already make it so Mary gets born without original sin, right?

Yep. Never said it made a lot of sense.

I believe the doctrine varies a bit among different protestant denominations.

Some believe that all mankind shares in original sin, while others believe Adam and Eve's actions only allowed sin to enter creation and we are each judged for our own sin. Some believe infants and unaccountable children {that definition also varies}
The rub is that ANY sin is unacceptable so according to that view of justice, a serial rapist and murderer and the guy who lied to his wife about looking fat in those pants are both bound for eternal punishment unless they accept the gift of redemption by believing in Jesus as Saviour.

And please, any Christians are invited to correct my understanding if it's faulty.

I was a Christian in my about 30. After doing a lot of studying it no longer makes any sense that a supreme being would require some physical sacrifice to forgive us, or that Christian doctrine represents any concept of justice.

[cosmosdan]

For the record, Original Sin is not in the Bible.

It's a doctrine built from certain interpretations of certain passages correct? Just as the Holy Trinity, while it's not specifically named in scripture , it's has become accepted as doctrine by some based interpretations.

Romans 5:12-21
12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--

13 for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.
etc.

1 Corinthians 15:22 (American Standard Version)

22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

[cosmosdan]

I was a Christian in my about 30. .

Wow, that's some lousy editing. :o

about 30 years ago,

or, in my 20s , rather than some mash up of both. :)

[Captain Amazing]

You're completely wrong on your dating of the Avestas, by the way. Most scholars date the oldest parts linguistically to the 2nd millenium BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster#Date), over a thousand years before Christianity, and several hundred years before Judaism.


I think the Avestas was compiled in its present form in the third century, but from manuscripts and oral traditions that were older.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

They were composed over several centuries.

Zoroastrianism itself dates to around 1100 BCE.

[ITR champion]

You're completely wrong on your dating of the Avestas, by the way. Most scholars date the oldest parts linguistically to the 2nd millenium BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster#Date), over a thousand years before Christianity, and several hundred years before Judaism.
Well that would make me right about the dating of the Avestas, not wrong. The oldest parts may date to the 2nd millenium BC--though we have no evidence of it--but the only version of the Avestas that we have now dates to much later. This website gives 226-651 AD. That matches exactly what I said, that the "chief source we have" comes from "several centuries after the founding of Christianity". However, the real question at issue here is what Cpomeroy asked, namely whether Zoroastrianism features a virgin birth and whether Christianity copied the virgin birth of Jesus from that. The answers are no and no.
By the way, JP Holding is an absolute joke of a cite.
Please explain why, specifically.
The Zoroastrian influences on Christianity are indirect and come through that religion's influence on Judaism after the Babylonian exile.

Some of the elements of Judaism and Christianity that come from Zorastrianism include the eschatological view of time, the belief in a an end of the world, resurrection of the dead and day of judgement, the belief in a cosmological battle between forces of "good and evil," and the belief in an evil anti-God/"Satan" type figure opposed to the "good" God.
Please provide a cite to back up this claim. (And recall that a cite means a reference to a reliable, outside source of information that clearly establishes what you said. Repeating yourself is not a cite. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "joke", "idiot", "moron", "woo", etc... is not a cite. Appealing to a supposed consensus among scholars is not a cite.)

[brocks]

The author's intent is irrelevent - the author does not have to know they are prophesying. Genesis and the Psalms are full of Messianic prophecy, too, that were unintentional by the author(s).

You might want to read the recent thread on Nostradamus, and how easy it is to find ways to make 'prophecies' correspond with events if you are non-specific enough.

The so-called Messianic prophecies are strained, to say the least. It hardly takes divine inspiration to say a snake will strike at a man's foot, but we are told that THAT is one of the first Messianic prophecies. Give me any novel over a few hundred pages, and I can find dozens of prophecies of that quality that relate to Jesus, or for that matter, to me.

[Skammer]

You might want to read the recent thread on Nostradamus, and how easy it is to find ways to make 'prophecies' correspond with events if you are non-specific enough.

The so-called Messianic prophecies are strained, to say the least. It hardly takes divine inspiration to say a snake will strike at a man's foot, but we are told that THAT is one of the first Messianic prophecies. Give me any novel over a few hundred pages, and I can find dozens of prophecies of that quality that relate to Jesus, or for that matter, to me.
I wasn't making the claim that they proved anything.

[brocks]

Too late to edit --- but I have never understood the Christian fascination with alleged Messianic prophecies.

Matthew and Luke totally destroy their credibility with their ridiculous birth narratives, in an attempt to explain why their Messiah lived in Nazareth, rather than Bethlehem. And Matthew especially twists every irrelevant verse he can into a prophecy, including one that nobody else can even find ("He shall be a Nazarene"), and including things, like the virgin birth, that Jews never required of the Messiah.

And yet, they all overlook the most important thing --- the Messiah, by definition, had to drive the invaders out of Israel. If he didn't do that, he wasn't the Messiah, no matter who his parents were, or where he was born.

It's as if I claimed to be the President of the US, and offered as proof the facts that I am a natural born citizen of the US, and am over 35, and am not a convicted felon.

All true, but so what, if I neglected that one little detail of actually being elected?

[Skammer]

And yet, they all overlook the most important thing --- the Messiah, by definition, had to drive the invaders out of Israel. If he didn't do that, he wasn't the Messiah, no matter who his parents were, or where he was born. That was/is the traditional Jewish definition of the Messiah. The earliest Christians came to believe that this interpretation of Messianic prophecy was incorrect, and that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies, albeit in unexpected ways.

[brocks]

That was/is the traditional Jewish definition of the Messiah. The earliest Christians came to believe that this interpretation of Messianic prophecy was incorrect, and that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies, albeit in unexpected ways.

I understand, but if Christians are going to redefine the most important aspect of the Messiah, why tie themselves in knots trying to make very minor aspects match up with Jewish prophecy?

[Markxxx]

I think she was a virgin, because the writers wanted to make it absolutely clear that GOD was Jesus's father, not Joseph. Unless you state Mary didn't have sex, someone will come along an argue the point, maybe it was Joseph or maybe someone else, or even she was raped.

But by saying Mary was a virgin, it makes it clear GOD was Jesus's father.

[Skammer]

Well Jesus' disciples were convinced, during his lifetime, that he was the Messiah. When he was executed it came as quite a shock, and required them to re-evaluate.

For some reason (Christians attribute it to the Resurrection), Jesus' followers came to believe that despite having died, He was the Messiah after all. So they had to go back and comb the scriptures to find evidence that Jesus was the Christ despite having not restored David's throne.

This is evident in the descriptions of the very earliest sermons that Peter delivered in Jerusalem:17 “Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. 19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20 and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21 Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. -- Acts 3:17-21

So the story goes that Jesus was the Messiah; and he suffered just as the scriptures predicted. And the prophecies about him restoring Israel are also valid, but they are still in the future. That's been the message of the Christianity from literally the very beginning.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well that would make me right about the dating of the Avestas, not wrong. The oldest parts may date to the 2nd millenium BC--though we have no evidence of it-
Yes we do. The evidence is linguistic, specifically the prpximity of the language to the Sanskrit Vedas.
-but the only version of the Avestas that we have now dates to much later.
They were written over many centuries, and trying to date them by extant manuscript is disingenuous and misleading. The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament date centuries after Jesus as well. The fact remains that Zorastrianism is over 1000 years older than Christianity and that several of its beliefs got into Christianity via Judaism.
Please explain why, specifically.
Because he is an uncredentialed, literalist, polemic blowhard. He's a retired prison librarian with no expertise who engages in very poor apologetics. He's a creationist. Need I say more.
Please provide a cite to back up this claim. (And recall that a cite means a reference to a reliable, outside source of information that clearly establishes what you said. Repeating yourself is not a cite. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "joke", "idiot", "moron", "woo", etc... is not a cite. Appealing to a supposed consensus among scholars is not a cite.)
This is tiresome. Google "Zoroastrian influence on Judaism." Take a basic course on Jewish History and you'll learn it there too.

To summarize (and I'm not going to go looking for links but if you wikipedia Zorastrianism, you'll see all you need to see), All of the beliefs I mentioned existed in Zorastrianism well before Judaism, and then coincidentally got into Judaism (where they hadn't existed before) right around the time that Persia liberated the Jews from Babylon. If you're going to try to deny that those beliefs existed in Zoroastrainism first, then you are beyond any reasonable discussion and I'm not going to waste my time.

[Chronos]

I stand corrected on the midwife bit. I don't know where I picked that up from, but it apparently wasn't from the Bible. Note, by the way, that even wherever-it-was I picked that up from, it's not claimed that Mary's hymen was intact after the birth, just during labor.

[Naxos]

... or do they?

Why do Christians believe the Mother of Jesus was a virgin?

Because most of the current Christian social culture is geared towards the punishment of a woman that enjoys sex or finds it enjoyable.

Therefore the woman that gave birth to their god must have been be free of human pleasure, so she had to be impregnated by a god... which leaves a question unanswered: did that woman enjoy her magical copulation with a god? Did the god enjoy the copulation as well?

There's no limit in asking questions like those, if the premise is illogical or moronic to start with.

[FriarTed]

Well Jesus' disciples were convinced, during his lifetime, that he was the Messiah. When he was executed it came as quite a shock, and required them to re-evaluate.

For some reason (Christians attribute it to the Resurrection), Jesus' followers came to believe that despite having died, He was the Messiah after all. So they had to go back and comb the scriptures to find evidence that Jesus was the Christ despite having not restored David's throne.

This is evident in the descriptions of the very earliest sermons that Peter delivered in Jerusalem:17 “Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. 19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20 and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21 Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. -- Acts 3:17-21

So the story goes that Jesus was the Messiah; and he suffered just as the scriptures predicted. And the prophecies about him restoring Israel are also valid, but they are still in the future. That's been the message of the Christianity from literally the very beginning.

I will add that outside of Psalm 2, AFAIK, there is no prophecy in the Hebrew Bible that says "Messiah will destory our oppressors and restore Israel". The closest thing is Isaiah's prophecy or commission to "Cyrus, My messiah/anointed". Other such prophecies refer to the Main Actor as YHWH, "The King", "The Lord (Adonai)", El or Elohim, "David the Prince", etc. However, Daniel 9 does say that a "messiah/anointed prince will be cut off" and that afterwards the Temple would be desolated & the City of Jerusalem destroyed. Jesus in Matthew 23-25, Mark 13 & Luke 21 is shown applying that prophecy to himself.

There is another sense that the Christian Scriptures use the Hebrew Scriptures as Messianic prophecy that regards Messiah as "the Personification of Israel" so that when Scripture says something of Israel or the great patriarchs or heroes or prophets, and then when Jesus experiences something similar, that Scripture is trotted out to show that in the ontogeny of Jesus is recapitualted the philogeny of Israel. Jesus did not have to be born in Bethlehem but he did have to descend from David of Bethelem. He did not have to go into & come out of Egypt but he did have to descend from the Israelites who did. The assertion that he did do both of these things tho were seen as validations of him being "The Israelite Extraordinaire" so to speak.

[Czarcasm]

Jesus did not have to be born in Bethlehem but he did have to descend from David of Bethelem.You see, here is where we run into a slight problem.

[dhkendall]

Scripture does not seem to record if God was a tough act to follow . . . .

I imagine He would be. I mean, after having made it with the Creator of all things?

Gotta be pretty tough for Mary too. I mean, even afterwords, Mary and Joseph are getting into it, and Mary starts moaning "Oh, God, Oh God!"

"GREAT! I knew you'd keep bringing up the past! I'll never be good enough for you!"

(stolen and adapted from some comedian's bit.)

[Boyo Jim]

I have no specific historic knowledge to back this up, but IMO the virginity thing was concocted to deal with any possible questions regarding Jesus's paternity. A pregnant virgin must be an act of God, pretty much by definition.

[monavis]

Matthew 1:24-25

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.




Scripture does not seem to record if God was a tough act to follow . . . .



BTW, this is pretty clear, beyond clear, actually, that Mary did the deed with Joseph, so where do the Catholics get the perpetual virginity 'thing'?

To go further here, did the Catholic Church ever have the discussion as to whether or not they would observe Biblical Inerrancy and Biblical Literalism ?

We already have the answer to that (they wouldn't), but does any Church teaching or policy, or stricture or edict address why they are not Literalist and Inerranticists?

It is my understanding of Catholic doctrine, that Joesph had children before he married Mary, and was portrayed as a much older man than Mary. They also teach it was cousins not brothers ,even though Mary was said to have visited her 'cousin' Elizabeth who's child( John the baptist) lept in her womb when he heard Mary tell Elizabeth that she was with God's child!

The RCC church's Bishops were considered the line of Peter (since Peter was Bishop of Rome at the time of Constantine), then all bishops(Popes) of Rome were considered to have direct power to Peter's chosen line of power, given by Jesus to Peter to bind or loose and would be bound or lessened in Heaven! It was the writings that the then Orthodox and RCC bishops decided were God's word and what was not! Hence the Pope's rules would become God's rules and speaking ex-catherdra would be error free!

[monavis]

Nope. (http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.html)

I you ever run into this philosophy teacher again, inform him that (a) we have virtually no evidence of Zoroastrianism being present in Palestine in the first century, hence no way that the early Christians could have copied from it, and (b) we know very little about Zoroastrian beliefs in the early centuries. The chief source we have is a collection of texts known as the Avesta, written several centuries after the founding of Christianity. Hence, if the few slim similarities between the two religions aren't best explained by coincidence, it was probably the Zoroastrians borrowing elements from Christianity and not the other way around.

This is probably why there is so much in Common with the Jesus story as with the Egyption God Osiris, who has many properties that Jesus is said to have. Osiris was called the Good Shepard, God and son of God, and they even had bread and wine ceremonies. He ressurected from the dead with the help of Isis who gathered up his parts, (since he was cut to pieces) and flew over him in the form of a dove and concieved Horus!

[monavis]

From my understanding of Christian doctrine and hearing evangelical preachers

When Adam ate the forbidden fruit and learned of good and evil sin entered God's creation and with it, physical and spiritual death for all mankind. God cannot tolerate any sin, so even the best among us were doomed to physical and spiritual death. But God so loved the world, etc.

For Jesus sacrifice to be able to conquer death and for fulfillment of prophecies, it was necessary for Jesus to be without sin, and born of a virgin. Jesus conquered death and redeemed all mankind who believe and accept God's gift of his only son.
I've heard several protestant preachers link virgin birth to Jesus being without sin and thus able to be a sacrifice to redeem all mankind.
I'd never heard the Mary was without sin as well , doctrine but it's linked to the same theology.

Doesn't really make sense to me but there it is.

In my reading of Genesis, the punishment for sin was death...nothing spiritual was implied!

[monavis]

Well Jesus' disciples were convinced, during his lifetime, that he was the Messiah. When he was executed it came as quite a shock, and required them to re-evaluate.

For some reason (Christians attribute it to the Resurrection), Jesus' followers came to believe that despite having died, He was the Messiah after all. So they had to go back and comb the scriptures to find evidence that Jesus was the Christ despite having not restored David's throne.

This is evident in the descriptions of the very earliest sermons that Peter delivered in Jerusalem:17 “Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. 19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20 and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21 Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. -- Acts 3:17-21

So the story goes that Jesus was the Messiah; and he suffered just as the scriptures predicted. And the prophecies about him restoring Israel are also valid, but they are still in the future. That's been the message of the Christianity from literally the very beginning.

I believe it was about 4 BCE that a man named Simon declared himself to be the Messiah, and believed he had to suffer for the People. It is my understanding that there were several men who people thought was the Messiah, before and after the time of Jesus.

[Skammer]

Because most of the current Christian social culture is geared towards the punishment of a woman that enjoys sex or finds it enjoyable.

Therefore the woman that gave birth to their god must have been be free of human pleasure, That stream of thought may be may be a common misconception, but fear or hatred of sex is a misunderstanding or twisting of official church doctrine. Browse any Christian bookstore and you'll find many books celebrating sex and/or giving sexual advice for married couples, where mutual enjoyment is a major theme.

Besides, we're talking about BVM - I don't know how "current Christian social culture" enters into it. Mary's virginity has been asserted since the first century.

I believe it was about 4 BCE that a man named Simon declared himself to be the Messiah, and believed he had to suffer for the People. It is my understanding that there were several men who people thought was the Messiah, before and after the time of Jesus.
Yeah, would-be Messiahs were a dime a dozen in those days. Interesting that Jesus is the one who stuck.

[ITR champion]

Osiris was called the Good Shepard, God and son of God, and they even had bread and wine ceremonies. He ressurected from the dead with the help of Isis who gathered up his parts, (since he was cut to pieces) and flew over him in the form of a dove and concieved Horus!
Was he really (http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html)? I'd be interested in seeing the ancient documents which tells us that Osiris was called the "Good Shepard" and that any rite involving bread and wine was related to him. Other than that, when I read this description from the Encyclopedia of Religions:
According to myth, Osiris, who assumed the rulership of the earth shortly after its creation, was slain by his jealous brother, Seth. The sister- wife of Osiris, Isis, who collected the pieces of her dismembered husband and revived him, also conceived his son and avenger, Horus. Horus fought with Seth, and, despite the loss of one eye in the contest, was successful in avenging the death of his father and in becoming his legitimate successor. Osiris then became king of the dead and Horus king of the living, this transfer being renewed at every change of earthly rule.
I don't see much in common between the Osiris myths and the life story of Jesus.

[ITR champion]

Yes we do. The evidence is linguistic, specifically the prpximity of the language to the Sanskrit Vedas.

They were written over many centuries, and trying to date them by extant manuscript is disingenuous and misleading. The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament date centuries after Jesus as well. The fact remains that Zorastrianism is over 1000 years older than Christianity and that several of its beliefs got into Christianity via Judaism.
Language proximity is more of a dartboard than a fine-tuned instrument for dating material. The amount that material changes in a given length of time varies hugely from case to case. The Wikipedia page that you linked to says that scholars differe widely on their dating. Other than that, I'll merely say what I said in my last post, which you edited out rather than respond to.
However, the real question at issue here is what Cpomeroy asked, namely whether Zoroastrianism features a virgin birth and whether Christianity copied the virgin birth of Jesus from that. The answers are no and no.
Since it seems all you want to do is change to the subject of Zoroastrian influences on Judaism at a much earlier date, I'll assume you're acknowledging the correctness of my point in this thread.

Because he is an uncredentialed, literalist, polemic blowhard. He's a retired prison librarian with no expertise who engages in very poor apologetics. He's a creationist. Need I say more.
I'm glad to see you're back to juvenile name calling. Wouldn't want to see you exhausting yourself by actually reading the page and responding to what it says. Calling people "uncredentialed" is particularly ridiculous for someone who just used Wikipedia and Google as cites. Why don't you remind us again of how many credentials a person must have to post on Wikipedia or get their page listed on Google?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Language proximity is more of a dartboard than a fine-tuned instrument for dating material.
Wrong. You've obviously never taken any classes on the subject.
Since it seems all you want to do is change to the subject of Zoroastrian influences on Judaism at a much earlier date, I'll assume you're acknowledging the correctness of my point in this thread.
I'm not changing the subject. All I ever asserted was that Zorastrianism influenced Judaism (and indirectly Christianity). All the Abrahamic religions can trace their eschatons back to Zoroastrianism as well as some other elements like dualistic forces of good and evil. I never claimed it had a direct influence on Christianity.
I'm glad to see you're back to juvenile name calling. Wouldn't want to see you exhausting yourself by actually reading the page and responding to what it says. Calling people "uncredentialed" is particularly ridiculous for someone who just used Wikipedia and Google as cites. Why don't you remind us again of how many credentials a person must have to post on Wikipedia or get their page listed on Google?
I have better credentials than that moron, Holding, does, and it's funny you want to complain about name-calling since Holding specializes in ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with him. I also happen to know that he engages in dishonest habits like editing his online debates to remove responses which are damaging to him. He is literalist, hack apologist who is infamous on the net for his bad behavior and obfuscatory tactics. You can do better than him, believe me. Try somebody like Stephen Carlson. He's an apologist with some responsibility and methodology.

[Apollyon]

I don't see much in common between the Osiris myths and the life story of Jesus.Life story? Maybe not. But it may be that being half-deity, born of a virgin, and imbued with miraculous powers were table stakes for introducing Christianity as a new religion into the Roman world.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The primary precursers of Osiris to the Christian mythology and ritual were that Osiris was killed and resurrected after three days, and that he had a eucharist where his "body" was eaten as bread. Osiris was, in many ways, a personification of grain and his myth was in the scattering of his body on the earth and his "resurrection" through the growth of new grain.

This doesn't mean that Christianity was just some kind of modified Osiris worship, but Christianity did adopt some elements of pagan mystery cults after it went Gentile.

[Princhester]

BTW, this is pretty clear, beyond clear, actually, that Mary did the deed with Joseph, so where do the Catholics get the perpetual virginity 'thing'?

Really? I don't know anything about this subject but my reading of this (quoted earlier in the thread):

His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

... based particularly on the "divorce her quietly" line is that Mary got knocked up by someone else. His first and understandable reaction was to ditch her, but then he's decided to marry her anyway. It wouldn't be the first time some lovelorn suitor has decided it's worth putting up with some other guy's baby as long as he gets the girl.

[Skammer]

Heyoka13 was referring to Mary and Joseph gettin' it on after Jesus was born.

[Captain Amazing]

... based particularly on the "divorce her quietly" line is that Mary got knocked up by someone else. His first and understandable reaction was to ditch her, but then he's decided to marry her anyway. It wouldn't be the first time some lovelorn suitor has decided it's worth putting up with some other guy's baby as long as he gets the girl.

Except the bible makes it pretty clear that it was God that did it. If you read, after Joseph decides to divorce her quietly, an angel comes to him and says, "Hey, Joseph. It was God that knocked your wife up. Don't divorce her."

[Princhester]

Heyoka13 was referring to Mary and Joseph gettin' it on after Jesus was born.

Oh, sorry. Missed that.

Except the bible makes it pretty clear that it was God that did it. If you read, after Joseph decides to divorce her quietly, an angel comes to him and says, "Hey, Joseph. It was God that knocked your wife up. Don't divorce her."

Yeah, sure. Uh huh.

[cosmosdan]

In my reading of Genesis, the punishment for sin was death...nothing spiritual was implied!

and what happens when you die in sin?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

and what happens when you die in sin?
In Jewish tradition or in Christian?

[Chronos]

Well, God would be someone else other than Joseph.

[monavis]

Was he really (http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html)? I'd be interested in seeing the ancient documents which tells us that Osiris was called the "Good Shepard" and that any rite involving bread and wine was related to him. Other than that, when I read this description from the Encyclopedia of Religions:

I don't see much in common between the Osiris myths and the life story of Jesus.

There are 2 volumes of the Osiris and the Egyptian Ressurection, I will post the author tomorrow. I have them both but they are on my second floor book shelves; I can get the direct quote at that time. There is also a woman Archeologist that was on TV in a documentry several years ago that belonged to an Egyptian sect, that said they still had the bread and wine ceremony.

I purched them at the Smithsonian in Washinton DC in 1986.

[monavis]

and what happens when you die in sin?

If you die in sin or not, you are still dead! Where does life go when you die? What is the difference between life and soul? Genesis still doesn't mention loss of a soul!

[JThunder]

This is probably why there is so much in Common with the Jesus story as with the Egyption God Osiris, who has many properties that Jesus is said to have. Osiris was called the Good Shepard, God and son of God, and they even had bread and wine ceremonies. He ressurected from the dead with the help of Isis who gathered up his parts, (since he was cut to pieces) and flew over him in the form of a dove and concieved Horus!
Not really. (http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html) Lay people often make such claims, but they are not well supported by archaeology.

[Scuba_Ben]

Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 - the infamous Immanuel passage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14). The Greek LXX translation used by Matthew mistranslated the Hebrew word, almah ("young woman") as parthenon, ("virgin")....

Interesting WP article. All this time I thought the original word was "ishah." That the word used is almah is my New Fact For Today.

Side note. The linked article says the LXX translated the Torah into Greek, but not the Nevi'im (prophets). Someone else later translated the rest. And translators have to adapt words to fit the target language's concepts.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Not really. (http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html) Lay people often make such claims, but they are not well supported by archaeology.
The Osiris myth had a murdered/resurrected god and a eucharist before Christianity. All of Holding/Turkel's whining and special pleading can't change that.

[New Deal Democrat]

The earliest gospel to be written is believed to have been the Gospel of St. Mark. This gospel begins, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

If Jesus is the Son of God, he could not have been engendered by Joseph. However, the New Testament nowhere asserts the perpetual virginity of Mary. Several passages dispute it. St. James, who was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, was Jesus' next oldest brother.

[Skammer]

Osiris is neither the only other dying/reborn god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity) nor the first, although the similarities in the myths are often over-simplified. But that doesn't impact the argument for the validity of Christianity.

"The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens — at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle." C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It didn't become fact. That is, a literal resurrection did not become fact. A mythological motif was overlayed onto a (probably) historical person, but that doesn't make the resurrection historical fact. It was just a way to interpret his death.

[JThunder]

The Osiris myth had a murdered/resurrected god and a eucharist before Christianity. All of Holding/Turkel's whining and special pleading can't change that.

Again, that's making too much of too little, exaggerating the Osiris myth far beyond what archaeology supports. While some sources claim that Osiris was resurrected, others (the Encyclopedia Brittanica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/433922/Osiris) and German scholar Gunter Wagner , for example) state that Osiris was revived, but only in the sense that he was reassembled and then made lord of the underworld. This is vastly different from being resurrected unto glory as Jesus was.

As for the alleged existence of a eucharist in the Osiris myth, I note that you haven't provided any source for your assertion. Indeed, I have yet to see anyone produce a credible source for that claim. I suppose that somebody could try to dredge up an account of Osiris sharing bread and wine with someone, but that would simply be a common meal -- nothing unusual, and certainly nothing that amounts to a eucharistic celebration. Obviously, the mere breaking of common bread or sharing of wine would be pretty ordinary, and not remotely analogous to the sharing of one's body and blood (either literally or symbolically).

[Skammer]

It didn't become fact. That is, a literal resurrection did not become fact. A mythological motif was overlayed onto a (probably) historical person, but that doesn't make the resurrection historical fact. It was just a way to interpret his death. Your explanation is a logical conclusion if you discount the possibility that the resurrection was a historical fact. Lewis was making a statement of faith, not a historical defense.

[Thudlow Boink]

It didn't become fact. That is, a literal resurrection did not become fact. A mythological motif was overlayed onto a (probably) historical person, but that doesn't make the resurrection historical fact. It was just a way to interpret his death.I am shocked—shocked!—that Diogenes disagrees with C. S. Lewis over whether the resurrection of Jesus actually happened.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Again, that's making too much of too little, exaggerating the Osiris myth far beyond what archaeology supports. While some sources claim that Osiris was resurrected, others (the Encyclopedia Brittanica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/433922/Osiris) and German scholar Gunter Wagner , for example) state that Osiris was revived, but only in the sense that he was reassembled and then made lord of the underworld. This is vastly different from being resurrected unto glory as Jesus was.
Not really. That's the special pleading I was referring to. He was reborn as growing grain, and his "body" was then eaten as bread.
As for the alleged existence of a eucharist in the Osiris myth, I note that you haven't provided any source for your assertion.
wiki is your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris#Mythology):
In the Osirian temple at Denderah, an inscription (translated by Budge, Chapter XV, Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection) describes in detail the making of wheat paste models of each dismembered piece of Osiris to be sent out to the town where each piece was discovered by Isis. At the temple of Mendes, figures of Osiris are made from wheat and paste placed in a trough on the day of the murder, then water was added for several days, until finally the mixture was kneaded into a mold of Osiris and taken to the temple to be buried (the sacred grain for these cakes were grown only in the temple fields). Molds were made from the wood of a red tree in the forms of the sixteen dismembered parts of Osiris, the cakes of 'divine' bread were made from each mold, placed in a silver chest and set near the head of the god with the inward parts of Osiris as described in the Book of the Dead (XVII). On the first day of the Festival of Ploughing, where the goddess Isis appears in her shrine where she is stripped naked, paste made from the grain were placed in her bed and moistened with water, representing the fecund earth. All of these sacred rituals were climaxed by the eating of sacramental god, the eucharist by which the celebrants were transformed, in their persuasion, into replicas of their god-man (Larson 20)
You'll also see that other sources for the Osiris myth include Plutarch and the Ikhernofret Stele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikhernofret_Stela) which gives a detailed description of Osirian passion plays (enacting the death, triumphant resurrection and crowning of Osiris) over 1600 years before Christianity.

[JThunder]

Not really. That's the special pleading I was referring to. He was reborn as growing grain, and his "body" was then eaten as bread.
I see. So the supposed "resurrection" that you're referring to was merely his being reborn as grain, rather than being restored to life. Obviously, this is vastly different from the resurrection account of Jesus. Even if we accept your interpretation as a resurrection, its parallels to the Christ story are superficial at best.



wiki is your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris#Mythology):
I asked for credible sources. I don't have a problem with Wikipedia as a rule; however, that particular article is based on the work of Martin Larson, who is neither an archaeologist nor an historian. Now, if you were to cite someone likethe egyptologist and archaeologist Henri Frankfort (http://books.google.com/books?id=vYhfazYeAnUC&dq=frankfort+osiris&source=gbs_navlinks_s), then I might be more impressed. (Just FTR, Frankfort says "Osiris, in fact, was not a 'dying' god at all but a 'dead' god. He never returned among the living; he was not liberated from the world of the dead, as Tammuz was. On the contrary, Osiris altogether belonged to the world of the dead; it was from there that he bestowed his blessings upon Egypt. He was always depicted as a mummy, a dead king.")

You'll also see that other sources for the Osiris myth include Plutarch and the Ikhernofret Stele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikhernofret_Stela) which gives a detailed description of Osirian passion plays (enacting the death, triumphant resurrection and crowning of Osiris) over 1600 years before Christianity.
I don't know about Ikhernofret Stela, but Plutarch's actual writings fall far short of what you are claiming. Plutarch did indeed write about one version of the myth in which Isis temporarily restored Osiris to life, after which he was hacked to pieces and reassembled. As I already pointed out though, this bears only a cursory resemblance to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, in which he was triumphantly exalted unto glory.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Like I said. Special pleading.

[cosmosdan]

Genesis still doesn't mention loss of a soul!

Which is largely irrelevant. I never claimed it did. The point is Christian doctrine which combines the OT and the New right?

[monavis]

Not really. (http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html) Lay people often make such claims, but they are not well supported by archaeology.

Read Osiris and the Egyptian Ressurection Volume 1 chapter 10. These 2 volumes were written by E.A. Wallis Budge. Most were taken from the Hiroglyphics. These 2 Books are from Achaerology in a sense, since they are from the original Egytptian writings in stone. Just as valid as the writings of the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish writings, of which there are no Original writings, the closest to the original is the Dead Sea Scrolls. Remember The Bible writings have no more validity then any other except by belief!

All written things, thoughts, Ideas etc. are the work of humans, In truth, it depends on what human you choose to believe!

[monavis]

Which is largely irrelevant. I never claimed it did. The point is Christian doctrine which combines the OT and the New right?

Indeed, but that doesn't make it any more valid that any other writing or teaching, but it does imply that there was no mention of loss of a soul, just death. Death means no longer alive!

[monavis]

I see. So the supposed "resurrection" that you're referring to was merely his being reborn as grain, rather than being restored to life. Obviously, this is vastly different from the resurrection account of Jesus. Even if we accept your interpretation as a resurrection, its parallels to the Christ story are superficial at best.



I asked for credible sources. I don't have a problem with Wikipedia as a rule; however, that particular article is based on the work of Martin Larson, who is neither an archaeologist nor an historian. Now, if you were to cite someone likethe egyptologist and archaeologist Henri Frankfort (http://books.google.com/books?id=vYhfazYeAnUC&dq=frankfort+osiris&source=gbs_navlinks_s), then I might be more impressed. (Just FTR, Frankfort says "Osiris, in fact, was not a 'dying' god at all but a 'dead' god. He never returned among the living; he was not liberated from the world of the dead, as Tammuz was. On the contrary, Osiris altogether belonged to the world of the dead; it was from there that he bestowed his blessings upon Egypt. He was always depicted as a mummy, a dead king.")


I don't know about Ikhernofret Stela, but Plutarch's actual writings fall far short of what you are claiming. Plutarch did indeed write about one version of the myth in which Isis temporarily restored Osiris to life, after which he was hacked to pieces and reassembled. As I already pointed out though, this bears only a cursory resemblance to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, in which he was triumphantly exalted unto glory.

Jesus was not any more trimumphantly exalted unto glory (he was said to have ressurected, but even His close friends didn't recognize Him, he promised to return in Glory, and many Christians are still waiting for that) any more than Osiris, if you read the 2 volumes,and the translations of the Hiroglyphics you will see the startling likeness to Jesus story. Osiris was not mummified, that happened many years later during the Dynasties time, Osiris was pre-Dynasty, He acended up to heaven where he became judge of the dead, He was made judge because he was said to be without sin!

Perface to Volume 1 Osiris and the Egyptian Ressurection:
"The central point of each Osirians Religion was the hope of ressurection in a transformed Body and of immorality which could only be realized by him through the death and ressurection of Osiris"

One doesn't have to believe anything about Osiris because it was written by some humans but there is just as much validity to those writings as any other writings by humans. Wither it is the NT,OT, the Koran or any other!

[Ken001]

Fascinating discussion but I think I'm getting a headache. :confused:

I'm a pale Christian insofar as I believe in the ethical and moral guidance of Christianity. I am friendly with my minister but rarely go to church. I do not believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection because both concepts cannot be supported by science.

Strictly that puts me outside Christianity so I simply try to lead a good life and remain aware of spirituality.

I do find the Roman Catholic deification of Mary distasteful.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Catholics will tell you that they don't deify Mary.

[monavis]

Catholics will tell you that they don't deify Mary.

Catholics Honor Mary,like any other person honors it's parents. She, as I understand it, is asked to pray for them, just as any believer asks another believer to pray for them!

[Czarcasm]

Catholics Honor Mary,like any other person honors it's parents. She, as I understand it, is asked to pray for them, just as any believer asks another believer to pray for them!But do you usually ask other dead people to pray for you?

[Chronos]

But do you usually ask other dead people to pray for you? Sure, why wouldn't you?

[Captain Amazing]

But do you usually ask other dead people to pray for you?

In Catholicism, you do it all the time. That's what the whole veneration of the saints thing is about.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

But do you usually ask other dead people to pray for you?
Catholicism has a whole system of patron saints who are asked to intervene (put in a word with the Boss for you) for a myriad of specific purposes.

[Czarcasm]

Catholicism has a whole system of patron saints who are asked to intervene (put in a word with the Boss for you) for a myriad of specific purposes.But i thought you left all your earthly cares behind you when you entered Heaven. Does this mean you are obligated to spend shifts manning a Heavenly Hot Line?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Only if you're a saint.

[Ken001]

Catholics will tell you that they don't deify Mary.

Hmm...well they have a lot of graven images of Mary which are prayed to, and there is great excitement around the world when a piece of mould or burnt toast looks vaguely Mary-like.

The Second Commandment:

You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.

The revering of Mary in breach of this commandment was one (of many) reasons Protestantism arose.

Edit: I can't believe I've been drawn into a theological debate... :D

[clairobscur]

Only if you're a saint.

Which you are by definition if you enter directly heaven.

[clairobscur]

Catholics will tell you that they don't deify Mary.

Even though it's true in theory, many Catholics, in practice, perceive saints as essentially secondary gods you can get favours from. Including Mary.

[Icerigger]

Catholic believe in Purgatory which has the same physical punishment as hell just for a limited time. When others on Earth pray for the dead they are lessening their time in Purgatory. There is also a very complex system of indulgences where you can "bank up" credits against your sufferings in Purgatory when you kick the bucket.

[monavis]

Even though it's true in theory, many Catholics, in practice, perceive saints as essentially secondary gods you can get favours from. Including Mary.

I am not Catholic, but I happen to know that a Catholic would be considered commiting Idolatry if they put Mary, or any saint, on the same level as God or a god. It is no different than if you ask a lawyer to answer a legal question for you. They just believe that the saints are in a better position to approach God then they are or any regular human is.

This is a silly as saying Catholics aren't Christian. Even though the people who use the Writings that the early Roman and Catholic Bishops decided was the word of God claim they aren't!!

[monavis]

Hmm...well they have a lot of graven images of Mary which are prayed to, and there is great excitement around the world when a piece of mould or burnt toast looks vaguely Mary-like.

The Second Commandment:

You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.

The revering of Mary in breach of this commandment was one (of many) reasons Protestantism arose.

Edit: I can't believe I've been drawn into a theological debate... :D

Catholics do not pray to a statue or an image of any one..not even Jesus, the object is used to help them keep their mind on the goodness of the person, any more than having a Photo of a famous person or statue in a park is used for adoration. Protestant religion arose over Luther disagreeing with the use of indulegences. And probably of wanting an excuse to marry a nun!

All sects of Christianity seem to have chosen a different passage in the Bible to start their own religion, they all intrepret it to their own satisifaction. Hence, the many, many, sects of Christianity. Thr RCC church uses the passage that Jesus made Peter( who was called Simon) head of His church and gave him and his successors power to bind on earth and it would be bound in heaven. I personally don't believe this, but I can well understand their use of it as as authority for the Pope to make or change rules.

[monavis]

But do you usually ask other dead people to pray for you?


Catholics, like most Christians, do not believe people are dead, but live on in Heaven with God. Just as they don't believe Jesus is dead. Even some non -Christains believe they can talk to the dead and the dead talks to them. Some even on this board think they have direct contact with God!

I do not personaly believe that, but I can understand their thinking.

[monavis]

But i thought you left all your earthly cares behind you when you entered Heaven. Does this mean you are obligated to spend shifts manning a Heavenly Hot Line?


Since they(The saints) believe that a Supreme being hears prayers ,and wants all people to join Him in heaven it could be the pleasure, not a chore to speak to God for their friends or family!

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

As Rufus might say "To believe that Jesus was conceived by a Divine miracle is a matter of faith. To believe that He just transported out without breaking the hymen, that's just stupid."Or as I might say: "To believe that this Jesus fellow means anything more than any other dead Middle Eastern dude is to spoil your life by chasing nonsense."

[gonzomax]

Catholics believe Mary was a virgin because they are taught that. Inculcation is a powerful tool.
The reasoning behind it of course ,is how can the son of god be perfect if he came from the seed of a mortal man. It presented a problem they had to solve. That was the solution they came up with. They had to find a way to avoid answering the question of a man /god halfbreed. How could they proclaim him the son of god, if Joe was his human father?

[monavis]

Catholics believe Mary was a virgin because they are taught that. Inculcation is a powerful tool.
The reasoning behind it of course ,is how can the son of god be perfect if he came from the seed of a mortal man. It presented a problem they had to solve. That was the solution they came up with. They had to find a way to avoid answering the question of a man /god halfbreed. How could they proclaim him the son of god, if Joe was his human father?

Yes, as all religions find a way to justify their claims,that is why religions are faith based. I see nothing wrong with people believing something as long as they don't use their religious beliefs to force others, or for harm. I believe most people use their beliefs to help them get through life, there are the extremeists in all religions that seem to have the need to have everyone believe the same as they do.

I also think they wanted Mary to be a virgin because God needed a perfect vessel in which to come to earth, so Mary was excluded from orignal sin, that was her Immaculate Conception.

[BigT]

Yes, as all religions find a way to justify their claims,that is why religions are faith based. I see nothing wrong with people believing something as long as they don't use their religious beliefs to force others, or for harm. I believe most people use their beliefs to help them get through life, there are the extremeists in all religions that seem to have the need to have everyone believe the same as they do.

I also think they wanted Mary to be a virgin because God needed a perfect vessel in which to come to earth, so Mary was excluded from orignal sin, that was her Immaculate Conception.

I think that's the reason behind the IC and perhaps perpetual virginity. But the idea that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived is found in a (possibly mistranslated) scripture in Isaiah, which predates Christianity by at least a few centuries.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Isaiah says nothing whatever about Mary or Jesus. As I explained above, Matthew took a passage from Isaiah which had nothing to do with the Messiah and chose to interpret it as a prophecy of Jesus. That passage contained a a Hebrew word almah which had been mistranslated as parthenon ("virgin") in the Greek Septuagint version of the Bible that he used.

[monavis]

Isaiah says nothing whatever about Mary or Jesus. As I explained above, Matthew took a passage from Isaiah which had nothing to do with the Messiah and chose to interpret it as a prophecy of Jesus. That passage contained a a Hebrew word almah which had been mistranslated as parthenon ("virgin") in the Greek Septuagint version of the Bible that he used.

It is quite possible that the translaters used things after the fact, to apply things about Jesus, we have no way of knowing the intent,but if one wanted to use a prophecy they could, just as some use the writings of Nostredomus to fit events! It seems to be a matter of intrepretation.

[Damuri Ajashi]

The whole idea of a half human/half god baby is totally Greco-Roman and not remotely Jewish, though.

I think that a lot of cultures and religions incorporated notions of divine seed.

Heck, rulers used to routinely claim that their great great grandaddy was actualyl some deity.

[Trans Fat Og]

It's actually in the Apocryphal Gospel of Mary AKA The ProtoEvangelium of James, not the Biblical Gospels. As Rufus might say "To believe that Jesus was conceived by a Divine miracle is a matter of faith. To believe that He just transported out without breaking the hymen, that's just stupid."

Or as I might say: "To believe that this Jesus fellow means anything more than any other dead Middle Eastern dude is to spoil your life by chasing nonsense."I agree. It's amazing how religious folks want to parse out the relative believability of unsubstantiated miracles.

I recall reading some arguments against Deuterocanonical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical) "Old Testament" books, including Tobit. At least some of the arguments, if not most, made a certain amount of sense. Then they had to go and make mention of unbelievable happenings. You know, "miracles" in the real Bible. Of course there was no explanation of why the "Apocrypha" miracles were either harder to believe, or, for that matter, inconsistent with the miracles in the more widely-accepted books.

IMO, they should have stuck with arguing from historical contradictions in the disputed books. We all know that when you leave those dubious books out, you have have a Bible free of contradictions. ;)

[humanafterall]

And I then said unto Jesus, "Your mother was a hamster, and your Holy Father smelt of elderberries!"