Problem for Christians and Muslims who believe in the Virgin birth of Christ

a reply to: IsidoreOfSeville
The Virgin birth is pagan and a belief system put forward later (as the scriptures were being composed) to pacify those pagans in the early birth of Christianity. Is there any passage in Jewish literature that proclaims the Messiah was to be immaculately conceived? There was always the stress in 14 generations of pure lineage.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Excuse me, sorry
I didn't realise because you hadn't stated an opinion you didn't have an opinion 👍

Still I suggest you should study the differences between Moses and Jesus and come to a logical conclusion between the two
Be they both gods or no


I think the bible is deliberately vague in places because God is beyond our comprehension, His ways are not ours
We can't understand him

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Raggedyman: Excuse me, sorry
I didn't realise because you hadn't stated an opinion you didn't have an opinion 👍

Remain so.

Raggedyman: Still I suggest you should study the differences between Moses and Jesus and come to a logical conclusion between the two Be they both gods or no.

Preposterous conclusion; neither are Gods (merely messengers of edict by others deemed themselves Demi-gods).

Raggedyman: I think the bible is deliberately vague in places because God is beyond our comprehension, His ways are not ours. We can't understand him

Not true. The Bible does a poor job explaining how this Absolute Universal binary Logic works; does a wonderful job in allowing for a metaphorical poetic interpretation (reach as many people as possible).

originally posted by: IsidoreOfSeville
a reply to: tiidoc

Alright, I found two. The second one is a bit wordy.

Was the Virgin Birth of Jesus Grounded in Paganism?

&

Virgin Birth of Christ

I don't know if those will answer you, I like to think they would, but I think they are great places to start if not. These were written by folks with a bigger brain than I possess when it comes to these sorts of things.

Enjoy!

Wow, I didn't realize Christian writers lied so blatantly. That's crazy.

The master of comparative mythologies is Joseph Campbell. He points out the virgin births all over Greek and other myths that pre-date Christianity. Also that the virgin birth is only mentioned in one gospel and that author was Greek.

As former priests have pointed out, the actual historicity of the Bible and other comparative myths are not even mentioned in divinity school. One former priest did the documentary The God Who Wasn't There. These people do not learn anything about anthropology and history except an already 100% proven false history.



From a review of Virgin Mother Goddesses of Antiquity, a modern book on virgin birth:

Suddenly, it all makes sense: Of course, the Great Creator of the Universe has been viewed as a female--a goddess--during a significant period of human culture. Evidence in many places points to this idea of a self-generative--essentially virginal--female creator preceding the development of a male counterpart. For, if God the Father or Yahweh is the creator, yet he has no consort, according to Christian tradition, and is basically asexual, then he too is virginal. Like Isis and so many others, God the Father is the Great Virgin. Nevertheless, like them he too begets. He is the Virgin Father--a concept applied to the Greek god Zeus as well, despite how many times he is said to procreate, since he is called in antiquity "parthenos" or virgin. As mythologist Robert Graves says, "Thus the Orphic hymn celebrates Zeus as both Father and Eternal Virgin." (Graves, 361) Rigoglioso also discusses Zeus as virgin creator, as in Orphic fragment 167:

Zeus's parthenogenetic capacity is expressed here in the idea that all existence was "created anew" in the moment of his ingesting of the older god [Phanes]. (Rigoglioso 2010, 46)

Cult of the Divine Birth by Marguerite RigogliosoThe role of Greek influence in much important religious thought is also highlighted in Dr. Rigoglioso's earlier work, The Cult of the Divine Births in Ancient Greece, which she frequently cites in her quest to show the omnipresent divine Virgin Mother Goddess in pre-Christian religion and mythology, dating back several thousand years. In any event, the various concepts predate their origin in Greece and can be found in numerous other places in antiquity, such as Asia Minor and Egypt.



As Rigoglioso thoroughly demonstrates in Virgin Mother Goddesses, ancient parthenogenetic female creators include:

Chaos, Nyx and Ge/Gaia
Athena/Neith/Metis
Artemis
Hera
Demeter and Persephone/Kore
Gnostic Sophia (essay by Angeleen Campra)

truthbeknown.com...

originally posted by: tiidoc

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: tiidoc
a reply to: enlightenedservant

www.hope-of-israel.org...

skip down to where the article starts talking about virgin births throughout history

What does that have to do with what I said or the Islamic view of Mariam/Mary and the virgin birth of her son?

It has everything to do with it if you compare the vast number of other virgin births throughout history.

You're talking about 2 completely different things. Not even apples and oranges, but apples and nebula. lol

The original point of this thread was that Muslims and Christians believe in the Virgin birth because of a prophecy & mistranslations of Israelite scriptures. I showed examples from the Qur'an itself that refute that perspective. Muslims believe in the Virgin birth because God describes it in the Qur'an. None of the other stuff has any influence on our beliefs at all.

So once again, it won't matter if you show me 1,000 believed virgin births from 1,000 different traditions. It will literally have no effect on why Muslims believe in the Virgin birth of the Prophet Essa/Jesus. I'm not sure why you don't get that because I've said it several times. I'm not arguing why Christians, pagans, or any other group of people believe in it. It's literally none of my business or concern. But I have/had no problem pointing out that those reasons have nothing to do with Islam, then I used Islam's highest scripture to prove it.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Raggedyman: Excuse me, sorry
I didn't realise because you hadn't stated an opinion you didn't have an opinion 👍

Remain so.

Raggedyman: Still I suggest you should study the differences between Moses and Jesus and come to a logical conclusion between the two Be they both gods or no.

Preposterous conclusion; neither are Gods (merely messengers of edict by others deemed themselves Demi-gods).

Raggedyman: I think the bible is deliberately vague in places because God is beyond our comprehension, His ways are not ours. We can't understand him

Not true. The Bible does a poor job explaining how this Absolute Universal binary Logic works; does a wonderful job in allowing for a metaphorical poetic interpretation (reach as many people as possible).

Wow, look you do have an opinion

Nothing I say would sway that opinion

You are welcome

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Bruh... ok.

I know you and other Muslim's base what they believe about the virgin birth on the Quran. If you had no other source to read ever except the Quran you'd still know of and believe in the Virgin Mary. I get that.

But I feel like you're dodging the point that I'm making. Which is that just because the story of the virgin birth is in the Quran you can not ignore the various other pre-Islamic traditions that also had the "virgin birth" story. You cant just say that this point doesnt matter because all you care about is what's in the Quran because these other virgin birth stories precede the Quran.

Let me ask this; why would God use the example of the virgin birth for one of his holiest prophets when that same example had already been used for hundreds if not thousands of years by other mostly pagan religious communities?

Just because the Quran cleaned the story up as to remove the idea that Jesus was "conceived" of the holy spirit does not mean the story does not have ties to it's origin (super human/god humans...dont forget Egypt)

originally posted by: tiidoc
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Bruh... ok.

I know you and other Muslim's base what they believe about the virgin birth on the Quran. If you had no other source to read ever except the Quran you'd still know of and believe in the Virgin Mary. I get that.

But I feel like you're dodging the point that I'm making. Which is that just because the story of the virgin birth is in the Quran you can not ignore the various other pre-Islamic traditions that also had the "virgin birth" story. You cant just say that this point doesnt matter because all you care about is what's in the Quran because these other virgin birth stories precede the Quran.

I ignore the other "pre-Islamic" traditions because they have nothing to do with Islamic beliefs, which is what the OP was talking about. Though for the record, we believe Islam started with the Prophet Adam & that the Prophet Muhammad is the final messenger, not the first.

Either way, there's nothing in Islam that says thosee other traditions or teachings are real or that we should even acknowledge them. Otherwise, should we also acknowledge the Rabbit "deity" that Chinese mythology believes lives on the Moon? Of course not, because it has nothing to do with Islam either. There is literally no reason for Muslims to acknowledge something just because pagans mentioned it; just as pagans have no reason to acknowledge the teachings mentioned in Islam.

Let me ask this; why would God use the example of the virgin birth for one of his holiest prophets when that same example had already been used for hundreds if not thousands of years by other mostly pagan religious communities?

God can use whatever example He wants. How can I or any other human answer that? But going by your example, why would He use the "example" of having Holy Books with His most revered messengers when special books have also been promoted before?

Just because the Quran cleaned the story up as to remove the idea that Jesus was "conceived" of the holy spirit does not mean the story does not have ties to it's origin (super human/god humans...dont forget Egypt)

Sorry, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I've explained this several times now (and my initial posts in this thread are very clear). Actually, I think you simply have the wrong idea of what the Qur'an is because you keep referring to it in ways that don't match it. Maybe you should actually read it from beginning to end and then you'll see what I'm talking about. Because it sounds like you think the Qur'an is a version of the Bible, an extension of the Bible, or something similar to that.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Hi Vet. I'm not familiar with Jewish literature to make a claim either way, maybe if you count the Old Testament.

As for the statement about the Virgin birth being Pagan, I don't know about that. It sounds a lot like the Pagan Influence Fallacy to me.

a reply to: joelr

Hi Joelr, that was a lot to read and digest. I immediately thought of an article I'd read earlier when I was going through all that.

Here's a small quote from the article:

Second, all the major doctrines of the Christian faith can be seen to have pagan antecedents. A Protestant may say that veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary hearkens back to pagan goddess worship, but the Virgin Birth (which he will affirm) also has multiple echoes in the myths of the pagan religions.

He sees as pagan belief in purgatory or prayers for the dead, but he believes in the Incarnation—and pagan religions abound in stories of god-men coming down to be born on earth. Does he believe in the Resurrection? Does he celebrate it at Easter? How does he fit that in with all the pagan myths of the dying and rising god who was worshiped annually at the springtime of the year? Does he believe in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? The Ascension? Does he practice baptism? The Lord’s Supper? All of these beliefs and practices have parallels in paganism. You can’t blame Catholics for being pagan in some beliefs and practices while happily endorsing beliefs that might just as readily have their origins in paganism. If Catholic doctrine and devotions are pagan, then Protestantism’s must be too.

This is the crunch of the argument. There are links between paganism and Christianity. That is natural because the Church was born in a particular culture, and that culture was bound to have some influence on it. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with this interaction. From the very beginning it was considered to be good missionary method: Find what connects with the Christian story in the culture you are preaching to and make the connection. Build on that and use it to share the Christian gospel through images and concepts with which they are familiar. This is precisely what we see taking place in the New Testament. In Acts 17, St. Paul preaches in Athens and sees an altar to an “unknown god.” He picks up on this idea and uses it to preach the gospel.

Written by the Oxford educated, Fr. Dwight Longenecker

His article can be found here. It is aimed at non-Catholic Christians, but I think it gets to gist of what you're talking about.

Cheers.

a reply to: joelr
Thomas Campbell's "My Big Toe" or the Theory of Everything is a fun read.

originally posted by: IsidoreOfSeville
a reply to: vethumanbeing
Hi Vet. I'm not familiar with Jewish literature to make a claim either way, maybe if you count the Old Testament.
As for the statement about the Virgin birth being Pagan, I don't know about that. It sounds a lot like the Pagan Influence Fallacy to me.

The Virgin birth was the narrative of a later re-writer (interpreter) of "LUKE"; falsely injected to gain the favor of living pagans in order to convert them more easily to the idea of Christianity (smooth move). Constantine did this in 300 AD hiding pagan symbols within the architecture of/within his new Roman city 'Constantinople'; which was to replace Rome.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Still I suggest you should study the differences between Moses and Jesus and come to a logical conclusion between the two
Be they both gods or no

Oxymoron there.

Neither of them are "gods", and there is no "logical" about either story - not the story of Moses or the story of Jesus.

The only "logical" is that you should treat others the way you want to be treated. That's what Jesus said. Just as many, many other revered and recorded sages have been saying, for many thousands of years....even thousands of years before "Jesus" ever (supposedly) existed.
The rest of it - ALL of the rest of it - is bunk.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Raggedyman: Excuse me, sorry
I didn't realise because you hadn't stated an opinion you didn't have an opinion 👍

Remain so.

Raggedyman: Still I suggest you should study the differences between Moses and Jesus and come to a logical conclusion between the two Be they both gods or no.

Preposterous conclusion; neither are Gods (merely messengers of edict by others deemed themselves Demi-gods).

Raggedyman: I think the bible is deliberately vague in places because God is beyond our comprehension, His ways are not ours. We can't understand him

Not true. The Bible does a poor job explaining how this Absolute Universal binary Logic works; does a wonderful job in allowing for a metaphorical poetic interpretation (reach as many people as possible).

Wow, look you do have an opinion
Nothing I say would sway that opinion
You are welcome

Why would you desire to sway an unstated (neutral) opinion or are you taking a calculated risk (the questions I pose come back upon you to reason out). Am I thanking you in advance of your next statement?

a reply to: IsidoreOfSeville

It sounds a lot like the Pagan Influence Fallacy to me.

It isn't a 'fallacy'. Not at all.
There exist too many undeniable parallels, plus proven recorded history, that the RCC used "pagan" ideas to sell their snake oil. The only reason Christmas and Easter fall when they do is because the pagans wouldn't come around unless the RCC adapted some of their ideas so that the masses would follow along and not totally discard the entire "Jesus" thing.

The masses were not willing to give up their festivals. So the "church" adopted the festivals and rebranded them.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
I'm pretty sure the whole virgin thing is a mistranslation.
I remember reading years ago that the original meaning was that mary was a "young girl", nothing about virgin mentioned any where.I would have to re-research it, but I am pretty sure I am correct.

Son of David son of Abraham (this is Joseph's) bloodline. If Joseph were not the physical father of Jesus what is point of explaining a bloodline; and Matthew never speaking of a virgin birth? Where does prophesy enter? "A miraculous birth", this has no reference to Jesus but an manufactured narrative to support the writer of Matthew.

The bloodline was the mother, go figure that out

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: IsidoreOfSeville

Isidore: It sounds a lot like the Pagan Influence Fallacy to me.

BuzzyWigs: It isn't a 'fallacy'. Not at all.
There exist too many undeniable parallels, plus proven recorded history, that the RCC used "pagan" ideas to sell their snake oil. The only reason Christmas and Easter fall when they do is because the pagans wouldn't come around unless the RCC adapted some of their ideas so that the masses would follow along and not totally discard the entire "Jesus" thing.
The masses were not willing to give up their festivals. So the "church" adopted the festivals and rebranded them.

This is true; once the RCC understood "this Christianity thing" could undermine them socially/politically adapted the Pagan ideology to fit Christianity; and edited what books would be included in the bible to suit their needs (gone go the arcane Gnostic writings)--this was a process that took hundreds of years to perfect resulting in the final text manipulation we have today.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Exactly. Deniers are denying. Doesn't change the facts. The facts, if acknowledged at all, merely suggest to them that they step out of their cherished "box" and take a look from a wider angle.

Very uncomfortable for them. Challenges their entire world-view. It's as if they are hearing a different language......even when it is their own language...... it's just too damn scary to even contemplate.
Many (if not most) of them will never, ever look further. Too scary.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
I'm pretty sure the whole virgin thing is a mistranslation.
I remember reading years ago that the original meaning was that mary was a "young girl", nothing about virgin mentioned any where.I would have to re-research it, but I am pretty sure I am correct.

Son of David son of Abraham (this is Joseph's) bloodline. If Joseph were not the physical father of Jesus what is point of explaining a bloodline; and Matthew never speaking of a virgin birth? Where does prophesy enter? "A miraculous birth", this has no reference to Jesus but an manufactured narrative to support the writer of Matthew.

The bloodline was the mother, go figure that out

Matthew 1. says the genealogy of Jesus from David to Joseph (husband of Mary), in order to prove that Jesus came from "the house of David" in accordance with Messianic tradition. The generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham goes on to name 14 generations from Abraham to David (babylon and yet another fourteen generations until the birth of Jesus).
Matthew never wrote about a 'virgin birth'; he assumed the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph then David and Abraham to be true. Matthew believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah; Mary was not a factor (why would she be); this was a patriarchal society, not matriarchal otherwise would be hearing from Abraham or Davids wives.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
I completely agree Buzzy.