![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I have excised the below due to noncompliance with Wikipedia content standards. It should be edited outside the front page before being reinserted. In particular, the relevance of parthogenesis to this topic is dubious at best, since it is neither possible in humans, nor attested by Christianity.
I agree that this section is terrible too. There should be a statement that says that virgin birth is impossible and hence it never actually happened and hence that people who believe that it did are categorically wrong on their beliefs. The more we try to dance around the issue with words, the further we get away from a useful and truthful encyclopedia entry on a clear cut issue:This is pure fiction and myth and should be presented as such.
63.166.226.83 ( talk) 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I think the matter of birth of Jesus Christ (may peace and blessings of God Almighty be upon him) is quite simple and obvious. Mary, mother of Jesus, married Joseph to give birth to the promised son. Though she was devoted for the church service and not supposed to marry but she had to in order to fullfill the divine scheme.
If an angel comes to a virgin with the glad tiding from God Almighty that she will give birth to a special child, it does not mean that it is going to happen in a miraculous way. It need not be, because that glad tiding can be fulfilled in an ordinary way by the marriage of that virgin with some one. All the story that Mary concieved Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him) miraculously before marrying Joseph is a supposition and do not have any roots in divine revelations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahim Channa ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
When the birth of Jesus is celebrated on 6 January, is that not then Christmas in the Julian Calendar rather than Epiphany? In the case of the celebration of his conception, that is Lady Day in England and it is 25 March "old style", 6 April "new style" - i.e. Julian and Gregorian calendars. Both Lady Day and Christmas are Quarter days in England. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
==Very biased== popular explanation, with a second book taking that view. Another view that I don't see presented is that a lot of young girls just don't know how babies get made (you can thank our wonderful sex education for that one). That does not appear to be a possibility, so there is no reason to include it. 2ndAmendment ( talk) 17:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added a section, worded differently than the original entry on the topic. It is, in my view, a valid piece of the puzzle of the concept of the Virgin Birth. It does not take a side but merely states a very simple fact and is well referenced. -- Stuthomas4 ( talk) 21:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It is discussed in a reasonable fashion on several religious sites, sites that one would think would have a bias yet are able to discuss the scientific part of the issue. I provide two references here: [1], [2] -- Stuthomas4 ( talk) 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 16:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Not all who claim to be Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus. The Roman Catholics instituted a celebration on Dec 25 (although shepherds would not have been in the fields at that time). I believe that the Orthodox celebrate it a week or two later. Those who use the Bible as authority instead of tradition do not celebrate the birth of Jesus, as there is neither command nor example of such. This section should be rephrased, perhaps "Many celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25," or "Catholics and Protestants celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25." 71.61.254.106 ( talk) 03:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defteri ( talk • contribs)
Since Mark does not mention the virgin birth, does the story come from the Q Gospel? Isn't the Q Gospel supposed to be without narrative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 ( talk) 10:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
In the past 36 hours a section has been deleted 3 times by 2 editors and reverted by three other editors, two of them (myself included) called it vandalism. May I suggest a 5 day ceasefire during which references for that piece of text are found? Else more effort will be spent debating it than improving it. The section does need better references, just like 50% of the rest of Wikipedia, but the info seems to be correct based on my preliminary searches. Quite often these deletions force people to go and look for references. So myself and the two editors who reverted it should really look for references for it. I think it came from the American Journal of Theology but I am not 100% sure, so I will search more in a few days. If you do have the reference please add it and edit the section. Thanks History2007 ( talk) 08:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a third explanation for the "multiple attestation," which Raymond E. Brown endorses in his Birth of the Messiah (rev.ed., 1993, p.699): that the common theme of virginal conception shows that there was an oral tradition of Jesus' virginal conception that predates Matthew and Luke. However, "multiple attestation" never proves historicity. This older oral tradition itself could be ahistorical. For example, it could have come from Christian circles in Syria after 70 CE, since both Matthew and Luke have connections there. No earlier attestation can be found. Note that this is an intermediate position. The two extreme positions cited in the "Historicity" section have less scholarly support than this one. J. Gresham Machen's and J. Shelby Spong's are outlying positions in New Testament scholarship. Thanks. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob3 ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
There are many highly dubious unreferenced claims in this section, including "The accounts of Matthew and Luke are taken as independent testimonies of the tradition, thus adding significantly to the evidence for the historical reality of the event of the birth." Taken by who as independent testimonies? and on what basis does this "add significantly to the evidence for the historical reality of the event of the birth." This confuses two very different ideas: 1. The event of the birth; and 2. The birth being of a virgin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.17.115 ( talk) 01:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to present a slightly different slant on the hypothesis that "Matthew and Luke both wanted to present Jesus as fulfilling prophecies from Hebrew scripture": In Hebrew tradition, virgin birth was not and is not a criterion for the authenticity of a Messianic candidate. So I think it's unlikely that the authors were attempting to appeal to traditional Hebrew Messianic expectation regarding virgin birth in the case of Jesus. Luke makes no mention of prophecy relating to virgin birth. On the other hand, Matthew quotes what he understands to be a prophecy of virgin birth from Isaiah, based on the Greek translation that is available to him. But because there was no widely-held virgin birth expectation, I suspect that both Matthew and Luke either had some other motivation for including virgin birth in their narratives, or they were simply reporting the event as they understood it to have occurred. If the latter is true, then in Matthew's case, rather than manufacturing the virgin birth to support his assertion that Jesus is the Messiah, he could have been seeking to make a connection between an event that he believed to have occurred recently with the Hebrew scriptures, and he found it in the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14. dcorsello ( talk) 12:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm cleaning up the Genealogy of Jesus article, and under the section "Virgin birth", which links here for main article, someone has added quite a bit of material that seems out of place there and more appropriate here. I'm not sure how best, or whether, to integrate it, so I'm posting it below: -- SlothMcCarty ( talk) 10:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Matthew 1:16 breaks with the pattern preceding it; it is at pains to distance Joseph from Jesus' actual parentage and point out that Joseph did not beget Jesus, but was simply the husband of the woman who was his mother. In the original Greek, the word translated as whom is unambiguously feminine. The shift to the passive voice also symbolizes the Virgin Birth.
Matthew 1:16 has attracted considerable scholarly attention because unusually the ancient sources show several different versions of it. For example, the Codex Koridethi has:
While the Syriac Sinaiticus has
The first version represents the same pattern as that used in most modern translations - unlike the prior genealogy, its convoluted wording, shifting to the passive voice, is at pains to distance Joseph from the parentage of Jesus, to support a Virgin Birth. The other version states clearly that Joseph was actually the father of Jesus, and while it does appear to state Mary is a virgin, the word now translated virgin actually corresponds to the Greek word parthenekos, which translates literally more as maid. Some scholars see these latter versions as evidence against the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, while others postulate that the original text only had words of the form "and Joseph was the father of Jesus", following the pattern of the prior verses, which later scribes altered to clarify that this did not amount to biological parentage.
Raymond Brown has proposed that these variants are not so much concerned with arguing for or against the Virgin Birth, but for the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary, which became prominent at the time the variants were created; both appear to be attempts to avoid making Joseph a husband to Mary, and hence to suppress the suggestion of sexual activity between them.
If Jesus is mentioned in Islam as per the introduction, why isn't there a section regarding Islamic view point? Faro0485 ( talk) 00:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The Koran says:
"The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was no more than God's apostle . . . God is but one God. GOD FORBID THAT HE SHOULD HAVE A SON!" (4:171)
"Those who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,' preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack..." (19:88)
"They say: 'God forbid that He Himself should beget a son!' " (19:29-)
"They say: 'Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom . . .' " (17:111)
"They say: 'God has begotten a son.' God forbid! Self-sufficient is He.' " (10:68) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.154.130 ( talk) 15:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The Islamic view of Jesus came far too late to be of any realy consequence to the topic. The Gospel account is far closer to the events being discussed, and necessarily has greater importance. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.171.163.217 (
talk)
17:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the following comment which rebuts an argument not put forward in the article and which I therefore think is off-topic. Besides, the theory that it propounds is not given in the article on the Septuagint, which is where it would seem to belong:
The article should better explain the distinction between the Virgin birth and the Incarnation, since many people tend to confuse those dogmas. Another common confusion is Virgin birth vs. Immaculate conception, but I see that this has already been noted on the page. ADM ( talk) 20:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is the scientific fact, that a belief in the Virgin birth of Jesus is completely contradictory to modern biology and genetics, omitted from the article? There are a number of well known biologists (like the zoologist Richard Dawkins) who have specifically addressed this claim. Is it possible to include a criticism section and add the relevant source? 203.199.213.131 ( talk) 10:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
to 59.92.40.31. Science has nothing to say about what an infinitely powerful being can or cannot do regarding the laws of the universe. What you call "magicking away" is precisely what the article is doing. There is no disagreement a virgin birth is impossible without the intervention of an external force. It also could be accomplished via. an external force. Even with today's technological power things like artificial insemination could create a virgin birth. We are perhaps only decades away from forming an Y chromosome from a X. It becomes a question a question of history and theology not science whether such an intervention took place. jbolden1517 Talk 02:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The current text about Dawkins opinion (using the word "unproven") is misleading. I'm sure Dawkins would never have formulated it like that. Natural science is not "proven" - it is backed by evidence. Dawkins would rather have said that there's no scientific evidence to justify belief in a virgin birth. ... or better yet: Ask him :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.117.184 ( talk) 08:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is the "defaultsort" parameter: {{DEFAULTSORT:Resurrection Of Jesus}}? If this is a mistake, please change it yourself, as I do not monitor this page. Regards, Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 01:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that this article was listed under "R" in the Jesus Category. I changed "{{DEFAULTSORT:Resurrection Of Jesus}}" to "{{Category:Resurrection Of Jesus}}". Now this article is listed under "V" in the Jesus Category. -- Smoggyrob | Talk 16:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
In reference to the virgin birth this article quotes the encyclopedia Britannica and states belief in the virgin birth was "A universally held belief in the Christian church by the second century" while this is a legitimate quote it is not correct as some members of the Gnostic Christian faiths (including Catharism) continue to believe in a traditional birth rather then a virgin birth. Recognizing this fact and respecting the Council of Nicea's adopting of the virgin birth into Christian Orthodoxy I propose to add the word Orthodox thusly
"A universally held belief in the Orthodox Christian church by the second century"
If anyone can come up for a better word to represent the fact that only parts of the Christian faith adopted the virgin birth in 325AD by all means suggest them, but something needs to be done to recognize the fact that not all Christians adopted the Nicene Creed. Without these other Christians we would never have had Heterodoxy ("other teaching")or heresy as it later came to be known. Many historical documents have been found (the dead sea scrolls, the gospel of Mary etc) dating from as late as the 6th century showing a Gnostic viewpoint and proving that all of Christianity did not adopt the virgin birth in 325AD.
71.175.201.21 (
talk)
19:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add that after stating the virgin birth is a UNIVERSALLY held belief the Britannica goes on to say "except for several minor sects, was not seriously challenged until the rise of Enlightenment theology in the 18th century." if several minor sects challenged the virgin birth, how could it have been universally believed. The very article in the Britannica that the universal line comes from retracts it in the next sentence. Due to this fact I would either use my above solution or remove the quote completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.201.21 ( talk) 04:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The cited Sura is the defining one for the role of Jesus in Islam and the quoted saying is a well known one used with diametrically the opposite import of what might be assumed given the prior text, i.e. an assertion of the divinity, i.e. godhood of Jesus. It does however support the creed of the virgin birth. The current wiki text in the Al-i-Imran article doesn't adequately or clearly convey this. Here is the penguin translation of Al-Imran:
The angels said to Mary: "Allah bids you rejoice in a Word from Him. His name is the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary. He shall be noble in this world and in the next, and shall be favored by Allah. He shall preach to men in his cradle and in the prime of manhood, and shall lead a religious life."
"Lord" she said, "how can I bear a child when no man has touched me?".
& etc.
The passages show the evident influence of Christian myth, christianity having been a state religion in the then still vibrant East Roman empire for 3 hundred years when it was written. However Quran and Muslims believe in many miracles and have various renderings of different elements of the common parts of the Abrahamic tradition. They emphatically do not believe that Isa was god incarnate and that is what the expression "Jesus, Son of Mary" is meant to emphasize. Lycurgus ( talk) 00:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that there is another article titled Virgin Birth (Mythology). Why is this article not part of that one? Isn't the concept of the virgin birth of Jesus part of the Christian mythology? Desoto10 ( talk) 22:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Because that is not neutral point of view. It is not wikipedia's job to deem what is mythology and what is not. 97.81.112.37 ( talk) 06:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There is some ambiguity to the term "Orthodox." In context, this wiki is talking about Eastern Orthodox (and links to the wiki). Some confusion could be avoided if Orthodox is replaces with Eastern Orthodox. 97.81.112.37 ( talk) 06:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding "Undid revision 343518124 by Esoglou": I grant that prevailing views may included RC Church within Christianity, so I leave that change. However, it is not reason to wholesale chop every change I made. For example, the creeds were mis-quoted; why re-instate the mis-quoting? More dramatically, you removed evidence from the Bible regarding the conception by the Holy Spirit, which precludes human reproductive cells. If any kind of Christian seeks Christian truth, where shall he turn if not the Bible? What greater authority is there?
As for Joseph, the Bible refers to him as Jesus' father with the exact same Greek word that Christ used to refer to Almighty God, His Father in heaven. Joseph was certainly as much a parent of Jesus as was Mary. The word "foster" deletes biological AND legal connections, which is utterly false. Joseph and Mary were the legal guardians, the adoptive parents, and the parents divinely appointed as our Lord's human mother and father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totoro33 ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I added some information to Virgin birth (mythology) necessary to a link from another article. However, I have just read this article and see that much of the old information in that article is already here. I would like to add my information here, as that article needs work and is just a repeat of parts of this one:
Mythology is the basis of many religious beliefs. Beliefs about the nature of virginity are no exception. Ancient Hebrews, like the Babylonians and Greeks, thought that bees were chaste because they seemed to produce offspring with their mouths, or from wax. There were many ancient doctrines concerning bees and their products. Honey was known by the Greeks to be an antiseptic, and believed to confer immortality. The Babylonians and Persians used bees’ wax in burying or embalming the dead. Bees were thought to be prophetic and divine. The Babylonian word for bee, nubtu, is a female form of the word for prophet, nabiu. Honey was produced by the Essenes and was part of the diet of Jewish ascetics, like John the Baptist. Since honey is a product of “speaking animals”, Hebrew poets compared it to the Word or to Wisdom, and bees to the Logos, the Word, or the Messenger. [4]
For the Hebrews, the prophetess Deborah was the sacred bee, which may have represented the conception of the divine Word. Robert Eisler said in "Orpheus the Fisher," that the idea of the divine Word was a primitive idea with the Semites and “independent of Hellenistic speculation.” However, Jacob Rabinowitz argues that the idea of reason or knowledge, drawn directly from the spirit of God in man, was entirely Greek. The idea of man as the reasoner is a partial definition that ignores man's imagination and passion. The preeminence of the rational ability in man represents Rabbinic, rather than archaic Judaism. [5]
The Christian Church took these ideas over. Both honeycomb and fish were eucharistic symbols of God’s mystic body. [4]-- Hammy64000 ( talk) 19:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this would be better in Virgin birth (mythology) after all. Or maybe another heading. It was in answer to a comment about virgin birth in another article so I thought this location made sense, but it's a big change of subject. Thanks any way.-- Hammy64000 ( talk) 00:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that all of the linked verses go to Biblegateway.com, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but for verses like "Isaiah 7:14" there are perfectly good articles on Wikipedia Isaiah 7:14, and it would be clearer if this was somehow indicated on the actual word. The first time I clicked on Isaiah 7:14, I was expecting to be sent elsewhere on wikipedia and it was a bit of a rude surprise when I was instead sent to another website. I'm not exactly sure if there are already guidelines about how to make clear when links will take the reader outside the website and when not, but I imagine there must be some acceptable ways to accomplish this. Tumacama ( talk) 13:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Sources must relate to the topic, which is the Virgin Birth. This is not the place for a general discussion of parthenogensis. I'll remove the bits that don't seem to have sources relating to Jesus. Dougweller ( talk) 20:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
[The reverted edit may be viewed at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Virgin_birth_of_Jesus&diff=446053315&oldid=442209340 ]-- DLMcN ( talk) 05:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
NB I support History2007's revert. Place for a 1 man view is on that 1 man's own bio article .. : In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Not an opinion from me yet, just a question. How is this different from the Allegory section, which starts, "According to Uta Ranke-Heinemann,"? - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you just explained why almost no one in the academic world supports Weatherhead. However, as Ruth A. Tucker explains in Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement ISBN 0310259371 pages 250-251, the Moonies support it as part of their strategy to "diminish the role of Jesus in Christianity, and promote the exaltation of Sun Myung Moon instead". Having Joseph as the father would not achieve the same level of refocus. But anyway, outside the Mooney compound there is hardly any scholarly support for Weatherhead's theory at all. So you are not alone in your bewilderment. History2007 ( talk) 20:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds like even a better solution. We can mention psilanthropism and Weatherhead will be one link in that, with Weatherhead's theory discussed on his own page. And I think psilanthropism should probably get a link in this article anyway - now it does not have one. But the more I look at it, the more I realize how isolated Weatherhead's theory is - people do not even bother to criticize him. History2007 ( talk) 05:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, it is simply false to say: "However, according to Matthew 1:19, Joseph was genuinely surprised, even horrified, when he heard that his fiancée Mary was already pregnant, such that he thought seriously about cancelling the marriage." That is only an interpretation, not an account of what Matthew 1:19 says. Matthew 1:19 in the version you cited] (without giving a working link to it) says: "Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly." It says nothing of being horrified, and even does not actually mention surprise, although surprise was inevitable in the circumstances posited by those who understand the text as speaking of a virginal conception, even more inevitable, indeed much more so, than in the circumstances posited by those who understand the text as pointing to a human father other than Joseph.
The other insertion, "There is, however, no record in any of the Gospels of Jesus mentioning that his mother had conceived him without a human father", is disputed. Both Matthew and Luke are commonly interpreted as mentioning precisely that. Esoglou ( talk) 15:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I had not read through this article in any detail before. Now that I have I see the need for plenty of clean up. I have tried to organize the sections so far but much more is needed. Some simple examples are as follows:
And the list goes on... and there are more problems, but a step at a time. I will start cleaning up anyway. History2007 ( talk) 21:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I have been a member of the Unification Church since 1974 and have been editing church-related articles here for the last several years. I was a bit surprised to find a fairly obscure fact about our church here in this article. It is absolutely true that we do not believe in a literal virgin birth of Jesus. The idea that Zacharias is or may be Jesus' father, although held by many members, is not an official part of our doctrine -- not being mentioned in the Divine Principle. However this article is about a 1,000 year old (or more) doctrine which is of great importance to billions of people. I think a minor detail of the beliefs of a fairly small group is out of place in this article. The issue of the Virgin Birth is not even mentioned in Unification Church, Sun Myung Moon, Divine Principle, or any other article on the UC. Why should UC beliefs be mentioned here? Steve Dufour ( talk) 20:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Steve, I think teh material you added as a subsection is now a general tutorial on UC beliefs rather than a discussion fo their position of Virgin Birth. E.g.:
And what this does NOT say is the crucial item: that the UC does not teach that Zachariah was the father of Jesus. I thought that was what you wanted to say. So this does not explain the key issue of "no teaching on Zachariah" but instead gives tutorial on salvation etc. I think you need to replace it with "UC does not formally teach that Zachariah was the father of Jesus" with a WP:Secondary reference. History2007 ( talk) 13:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
But you know that I never even wanted to work on that section, however now that it is there, should be done right. The problem still is: why is there a separate subsection on UC in a VB article? That looks just unusual. My guess is that given that Tucker was there, the other material would show other aspects of the UC beliefs, but it is still really overdosing on UC.
My suggestion is just to just say:
That way Weatherhead gets mentioned as the other user wanted, Tucker gets mentioned and it is all brief, so we do not OD on a UC tutorial. History2007 ( talk) 18:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it worth also mentioning the Qur'anic account of Mary being criticized (for being an unmarried mother) - and Jesus then speaking up from the cradle in [indirect] support of his mother? Admittedly, there is already a recommended link across to "Jesus in Islam", which contains the following description: "The Qur'an goes onto narrate that Mary ... brought [the extremely young] Jesus to the temple, where immediately she began to be taunted by all the men, excluding Zechariah, who believed in the virgin birth. The Israelites accused Mary of being a loose woman and having touched another man whilst unmarried. In response, Mary pointed to her son, telling them to talk to him ..." [which Jesus then did - according to the text, that is]. I confess, incidentally, that I find quite intriguing the above reference to Zechariah, because of my personal interest in Leslie Weatherhead's theory.-- DLMcN ( talk) 19:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
History2007 and 217.43.107.207 ... St. Paul's mission was to try and convince others that Jesus really was the "Son of God" - so surely it would have been relevant for him to emphasize the miracle of the Virgin Birth? (assuming of course that it did happen and that he knew about it). Is that a fair reflection of any of the arguments contained in references 38 to 52?-- DLMcN ( talk) 06:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I have excised the below due to noncompliance with Wikipedia content standards. It should be edited outside the front page before being reinserted. In particular, the relevance of parthogenesis to this topic is dubious at best, since it is neither possible in humans, nor attested by Christianity.
I agree that this section is terrible too. There should be a statement that says that virgin birth is impossible and hence it never actually happened and hence that people who believe that it did are categorically wrong on their beliefs. The more we try to dance around the issue with words, the further we get away from a useful and truthful encyclopedia entry on a clear cut issue:This is pure fiction and myth and should be presented as such.
63.166.226.83 ( talk) 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I think the matter of birth of Jesus Christ (may peace and blessings of God Almighty be upon him) is quite simple and obvious. Mary, mother of Jesus, married Joseph to give birth to the promised son. Though she was devoted for the church service and not supposed to marry but she had to in order to fullfill the divine scheme.
If an angel comes to a virgin with the glad tiding from God Almighty that she will give birth to a special child, it does not mean that it is going to happen in a miraculous way. It need not be, because that glad tiding can be fulfilled in an ordinary way by the marriage of that virgin with some one. All the story that Mary concieved Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him) miraculously before marrying Joseph is a supposition and do not have any roots in divine revelations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahim Channa ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
When the birth of Jesus is celebrated on 6 January, is that not then Christmas in the Julian Calendar rather than Epiphany? In the case of the celebration of his conception, that is Lady Day in England and it is 25 March "old style", 6 April "new style" - i.e. Julian and Gregorian calendars. Both Lady Day and Christmas are Quarter days in England. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
==Very biased== popular explanation, with a second book taking that view. Another view that I don't see presented is that a lot of young girls just don't know how babies get made (you can thank our wonderful sex education for that one). That does not appear to be a possibility, so there is no reason to include it. 2ndAmendment ( talk) 17:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added a section, worded differently than the original entry on the topic. It is, in my view, a valid piece of the puzzle of the concept of the Virgin Birth. It does not take a side but merely states a very simple fact and is well referenced. -- Stuthomas4 ( talk) 21:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It is discussed in a reasonable fashion on several religious sites, sites that one would think would have a bias yet are able to discuss the scientific part of the issue. I provide two references here: [1], [2] -- Stuthomas4 ( talk) 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 16:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Not all who claim to be Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus. The Roman Catholics instituted a celebration on Dec 25 (although shepherds would not have been in the fields at that time). I believe that the Orthodox celebrate it a week or two later. Those who use the Bible as authority instead of tradition do not celebrate the birth of Jesus, as there is neither command nor example of such. This section should be rephrased, perhaps "Many celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25," or "Catholics and Protestants celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25." 71.61.254.106 ( talk) 03:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defteri ( talk • contribs)
Since Mark does not mention the virgin birth, does the story come from the Q Gospel? Isn't the Q Gospel supposed to be without narrative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 ( talk) 10:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
In the past 36 hours a section has been deleted 3 times by 2 editors and reverted by three other editors, two of them (myself included) called it vandalism. May I suggest a 5 day ceasefire during which references for that piece of text are found? Else more effort will be spent debating it than improving it. The section does need better references, just like 50% of the rest of Wikipedia, but the info seems to be correct based on my preliminary searches. Quite often these deletions force people to go and look for references. So myself and the two editors who reverted it should really look for references for it. I think it came from the American Journal of Theology but I am not 100% sure, so I will search more in a few days. If you do have the reference please add it and edit the section. Thanks History2007 ( talk) 08:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a third explanation for the "multiple attestation," which Raymond E. Brown endorses in his Birth of the Messiah (rev.ed., 1993, p.699): that the common theme of virginal conception shows that there was an oral tradition of Jesus' virginal conception that predates Matthew and Luke. However, "multiple attestation" never proves historicity. This older oral tradition itself could be ahistorical. For example, it could have come from Christian circles in Syria after 70 CE, since both Matthew and Luke have connections there. No earlier attestation can be found. Note that this is an intermediate position. The two extreme positions cited in the "Historicity" section have less scholarly support than this one. J. Gresham Machen's and J. Shelby Spong's are outlying positions in New Testament scholarship. Thanks. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob3 ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
There are many highly dubious unreferenced claims in this section, including "The accounts of Matthew and Luke are taken as independent testimonies of the tradition, thus adding significantly to the evidence for the historical reality of the event of the birth." Taken by who as independent testimonies? and on what basis does this "add significantly to the evidence for the historical reality of the event of the birth." This confuses two very different ideas: 1. The event of the birth; and 2. The birth being of a virgin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.17.115 ( talk) 01:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to present a slightly different slant on the hypothesis that "Matthew and Luke both wanted to present Jesus as fulfilling prophecies from Hebrew scripture": In Hebrew tradition, virgin birth was not and is not a criterion for the authenticity of a Messianic candidate. So I think it's unlikely that the authors were attempting to appeal to traditional Hebrew Messianic expectation regarding virgin birth in the case of Jesus. Luke makes no mention of prophecy relating to virgin birth. On the other hand, Matthew quotes what he understands to be a prophecy of virgin birth from Isaiah, based on the Greek translation that is available to him. But because there was no widely-held virgin birth expectation, I suspect that both Matthew and Luke either had some other motivation for including virgin birth in their narratives, or they were simply reporting the event as they understood it to have occurred. If the latter is true, then in Matthew's case, rather than manufacturing the virgin birth to support his assertion that Jesus is the Messiah, he could have been seeking to make a connection between an event that he believed to have occurred recently with the Hebrew scriptures, and he found it in the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14. dcorsello ( talk) 12:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm cleaning up the Genealogy of Jesus article, and under the section "Virgin birth", which links here for main article, someone has added quite a bit of material that seems out of place there and more appropriate here. I'm not sure how best, or whether, to integrate it, so I'm posting it below: -- SlothMcCarty ( talk) 10:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Matthew 1:16 breaks with the pattern preceding it; it is at pains to distance Joseph from Jesus' actual parentage and point out that Joseph did not beget Jesus, but was simply the husband of the woman who was his mother. In the original Greek, the word translated as whom is unambiguously feminine. The shift to the passive voice also symbolizes the Virgin Birth.
Matthew 1:16 has attracted considerable scholarly attention because unusually the ancient sources show several different versions of it. For example, the Codex Koridethi has:
While the Syriac Sinaiticus has
The first version represents the same pattern as that used in most modern translations - unlike the prior genealogy, its convoluted wording, shifting to the passive voice, is at pains to distance Joseph from the parentage of Jesus, to support a Virgin Birth. The other version states clearly that Joseph was actually the father of Jesus, and while it does appear to state Mary is a virgin, the word now translated virgin actually corresponds to the Greek word parthenekos, which translates literally more as maid. Some scholars see these latter versions as evidence against the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, while others postulate that the original text only had words of the form "and Joseph was the father of Jesus", following the pattern of the prior verses, which later scribes altered to clarify that this did not amount to biological parentage.
Raymond Brown has proposed that these variants are not so much concerned with arguing for or against the Virgin Birth, but for the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary, which became prominent at the time the variants were created; both appear to be attempts to avoid making Joseph a husband to Mary, and hence to suppress the suggestion of sexual activity between them.
If Jesus is mentioned in Islam as per the introduction, why isn't there a section regarding Islamic view point? Faro0485 ( talk) 00:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The Koran says:
"The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was no more than God's apostle . . . God is but one God. GOD FORBID THAT HE SHOULD HAVE A SON!" (4:171)
"Those who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,' preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack..." (19:88)
"They say: 'God forbid that He Himself should beget a son!' " (19:29-)
"They say: 'Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom . . .' " (17:111)
"They say: 'God has begotten a son.' God forbid! Self-sufficient is He.' " (10:68) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.154.130 ( talk) 15:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The Islamic view of Jesus came far too late to be of any realy consequence to the topic. The Gospel account is far closer to the events being discussed, and necessarily has greater importance. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.171.163.217 (
talk)
17:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the following comment which rebuts an argument not put forward in the article and which I therefore think is off-topic. Besides, the theory that it propounds is not given in the article on the Septuagint, which is where it would seem to belong:
The article should better explain the distinction between the Virgin birth and the Incarnation, since many people tend to confuse those dogmas. Another common confusion is Virgin birth vs. Immaculate conception, but I see that this has already been noted on the page. ADM ( talk) 20:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is the scientific fact, that a belief in the Virgin birth of Jesus is completely contradictory to modern biology and genetics, omitted from the article? There are a number of well known biologists (like the zoologist Richard Dawkins) who have specifically addressed this claim. Is it possible to include a criticism section and add the relevant source? 203.199.213.131 ( talk) 10:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
to 59.92.40.31. Science has nothing to say about what an infinitely powerful being can or cannot do regarding the laws of the universe. What you call "magicking away" is precisely what the article is doing. There is no disagreement a virgin birth is impossible without the intervention of an external force. It also could be accomplished via. an external force. Even with today's technological power things like artificial insemination could create a virgin birth. We are perhaps only decades away from forming an Y chromosome from a X. It becomes a question a question of history and theology not science whether such an intervention took place. jbolden1517 Talk 02:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The current text about Dawkins opinion (using the word "unproven") is misleading. I'm sure Dawkins would never have formulated it like that. Natural science is not "proven" - it is backed by evidence. Dawkins would rather have said that there's no scientific evidence to justify belief in a virgin birth. ... or better yet: Ask him :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.117.184 ( talk) 08:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is the "defaultsort" parameter: {{DEFAULTSORT:Resurrection Of Jesus}}? If this is a mistake, please change it yourself, as I do not monitor this page. Regards, Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 01:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that this article was listed under "R" in the Jesus Category. I changed "{{DEFAULTSORT:Resurrection Of Jesus}}" to "{{Category:Resurrection Of Jesus}}". Now this article is listed under "V" in the Jesus Category. -- Smoggyrob | Talk 16:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
In reference to the virgin birth this article quotes the encyclopedia Britannica and states belief in the virgin birth was "A universally held belief in the Christian church by the second century" while this is a legitimate quote it is not correct as some members of the Gnostic Christian faiths (including Catharism) continue to believe in a traditional birth rather then a virgin birth. Recognizing this fact and respecting the Council of Nicea's adopting of the virgin birth into Christian Orthodoxy I propose to add the word Orthodox thusly
"A universally held belief in the Orthodox Christian church by the second century"
If anyone can come up for a better word to represent the fact that only parts of the Christian faith adopted the virgin birth in 325AD by all means suggest them, but something needs to be done to recognize the fact that not all Christians adopted the Nicene Creed. Without these other Christians we would never have had Heterodoxy ("other teaching")or heresy as it later came to be known. Many historical documents have been found (the dead sea scrolls, the gospel of Mary etc) dating from as late as the 6th century showing a Gnostic viewpoint and proving that all of Christianity did not adopt the virgin birth in 325AD.
71.175.201.21 (
talk)
19:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add that after stating the virgin birth is a UNIVERSALLY held belief the Britannica goes on to say "except for several minor sects, was not seriously challenged until the rise of Enlightenment theology in the 18th century." if several minor sects challenged the virgin birth, how could it have been universally believed. The very article in the Britannica that the universal line comes from retracts it in the next sentence. Due to this fact I would either use my above solution or remove the quote completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.201.21 ( talk) 04:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The cited Sura is the defining one for the role of Jesus in Islam and the quoted saying is a well known one used with diametrically the opposite import of what might be assumed given the prior text, i.e. an assertion of the divinity, i.e. godhood of Jesus. It does however support the creed of the virgin birth. The current wiki text in the Al-i-Imran article doesn't adequately or clearly convey this. Here is the penguin translation of Al-Imran:
The angels said to Mary: "Allah bids you rejoice in a Word from Him. His name is the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary. He shall be noble in this world and in the next, and shall be favored by Allah. He shall preach to men in his cradle and in the prime of manhood, and shall lead a religious life."
"Lord" she said, "how can I bear a child when no man has touched me?".
& etc.
The passages show the evident influence of Christian myth, christianity having been a state religion in the then still vibrant East Roman empire for 3 hundred years when it was written. However Quran and Muslims believe in many miracles and have various renderings of different elements of the common parts of the Abrahamic tradition. They emphatically do not believe that Isa was god incarnate and that is what the expression "Jesus, Son of Mary" is meant to emphasize. Lycurgus ( talk) 00:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that there is another article titled Virgin Birth (Mythology). Why is this article not part of that one? Isn't the concept of the virgin birth of Jesus part of the Christian mythology? Desoto10 ( talk) 22:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Because that is not neutral point of view. It is not wikipedia's job to deem what is mythology and what is not. 97.81.112.37 ( talk) 06:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There is some ambiguity to the term "Orthodox." In context, this wiki is talking about Eastern Orthodox (and links to the wiki). Some confusion could be avoided if Orthodox is replaces with Eastern Orthodox. 97.81.112.37 ( talk) 06:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding "Undid revision 343518124 by Esoglou": I grant that prevailing views may included RC Church within Christianity, so I leave that change. However, it is not reason to wholesale chop every change I made. For example, the creeds were mis-quoted; why re-instate the mis-quoting? More dramatically, you removed evidence from the Bible regarding the conception by the Holy Spirit, which precludes human reproductive cells. If any kind of Christian seeks Christian truth, where shall he turn if not the Bible? What greater authority is there?
As for Joseph, the Bible refers to him as Jesus' father with the exact same Greek word that Christ used to refer to Almighty God, His Father in heaven. Joseph was certainly as much a parent of Jesus as was Mary. The word "foster" deletes biological AND legal connections, which is utterly false. Joseph and Mary were the legal guardians, the adoptive parents, and the parents divinely appointed as our Lord's human mother and father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totoro33 ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I added some information to Virgin birth (mythology) necessary to a link from another article. However, I have just read this article and see that much of the old information in that article is already here. I would like to add my information here, as that article needs work and is just a repeat of parts of this one:
Mythology is the basis of many religious beliefs. Beliefs about the nature of virginity are no exception. Ancient Hebrews, like the Babylonians and Greeks, thought that bees were chaste because they seemed to produce offspring with their mouths, or from wax. There were many ancient doctrines concerning bees and their products. Honey was known by the Greeks to be an antiseptic, and believed to confer immortality. The Babylonians and Persians used bees’ wax in burying or embalming the dead. Bees were thought to be prophetic and divine. The Babylonian word for bee, nubtu, is a female form of the word for prophet, nabiu. Honey was produced by the Essenes and was part of the diet of Jewish ascetics, like John the Baptist. Since honey is a product of “speaking animals”, Hebrew poets compared it to the Word or to Wisdom, and bees to the Logos, the Word, or the Messenger. [4]
For the Hebrews, the prophetess Deborah was the sacred bee, which may have represented the conception of the divine Word. Robert Eisler said in "Orpheus the Fisher," that the idea of the divine Word was a primitive idea with the Semites and “independent of Hellenistic speculation.” However, Jacob Rabinowitz argues that the idea of reason or knowledge, drawn directly from the spirit of God in man, was entirely Greek. The idea of man as the reasoner is a partial definition that ignores man's imagination and passion. The preeminence of the rational ability in man represents Rabbinic, rather than archaic Judaism. [5]
The Christian Church took these ideas over. Both honeycomb and fish were eucharistic symbols of God’s mystic body. [4]-- Hammy64000 ( talk) 19:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this would be better in Virgin birth (mythology) after all. Or maybe another heading. It was in answer to a comment about virgin birth in another article so I thought this location made sense, but it's a big change of subject. Thanks any way.-- Hammy64000 ( talk) 00:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that all of the linked verses go to Biblegateway.com, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but for verses like "Isaiah 7:14" there are perfectly good articles on Wikipedia Isaiah 7:14, and it would be clearer if this was somehow indicated on the actual word. The first time I clicked on Isaiah 7:14, I was expecting to be sent elsewhere on wikipedia and it was a bit of a rude surprise when I was instead sent to another website. I'm not exactly sure if there are already guidelines about how to make clear when links will take the reader outside the website and when not, but I imagine there must be some acceptable ways to accomplish this. Tumacama ( talk) 13:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Sources must relate to the topic, which is the Virgin Birth. This is not the place for a general discussion of parthenogensis. I'll remove the bits that don't seem to have sources relating to Jesus. Dougweller ( talk) 20:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
[The reverted edit may be viewed at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Virgin_birth_of_Jesus&diff=446053315&oldid=442209340 ]-- DLMcN ( talk) 05:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
NB I support History2007's revert. Place for a 1 man view is on that 1 man's own bio article .. : In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Not an opinion from me yet, just a question. How is this different from the Allegory section, which starts, "According to Uta Ranke-Heinemann,"? - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you just explained why almost no one in the academic world supports Weatherhead. However, as Ruth A. Tucker explains in Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement ISBN 0310259371 pages 250-251, the Moonies support it as part of their strategy to "diminish the role of Jesus in Christianity, and promote the exaltation of Sun Myung Moon instead". Having Joseph as the father would not achieve the same level of refocus. But anyway, outside the Mooney compound there is hardly any scholarly support for Weatherhead's theory at all. So you are not alone in your bewilderment. History2007 ( talk) 20:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds like even a better solution. We can mention psilanthropism and Weatherhead will be one link in that, with Weatherhead's theory discussed on his own page. And I think psilanthropism should probably get a link in this article anyway - now it does not have one. But the more I look at it, the more I realize how isolated Weatherhead's theory is - people do not even bother to criticize him. History2007 ( talk) 05:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, it is simply false to say: "However, according to Matthew 1:19, Joseph was genuinely surprised, even horrified, when he heard that his fiancée Mary was already pregnant, such that he thought seriously about cancelling the marriage." That is only an interpretation, not an account of what Matthew 1:19 says. Matthew 1:19 in the version you cited] (without giving a working link to it) says: "Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly." It says nothing of being horrified, and even does not actually mention surprise, although surprise was inevitable in the circumstances posited by those who understand the text as speaking of a virginal conception, even more inevitable, indeed much more so, than in the circumstances posited by those who understand the text as pointing to a human father other than Joseph.
The other insertion, "There is, however, no record in any of the Gospels of Jesus mentioning that his mother had conceived him without a human father", is disputed. Both Matthew and Luke are commonly interpreted as mentioning precisely that. Esoglou ( talk) 15:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I had not read through this article in any detail before. Now that I have I see the need for plenty of clean up. I have tried to organize the sections so far but much more is needed. Some simple examples are as follows:
And the list goes on... and there are more problems, but a step at a time. I will start cleaning up anyway. History2007 ( talk) 21:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I have been a member of the Unification Church since 1974 and have been editing church-related articles here for the last several years. I was a bit surprised to find a fairly obscure fact about our church here in this article. It is absolutely true that we do not believe in a literal virgin birth of Jesus. The idea that Zacharias is or may be Jesus' father, although held by many members, is not an official part of our doctrine -- not being mentioned in the Divine Principle. However this article is about a 1,000 year old (or more) doctrine which is of great importance to billions of people. I think a minor detail of the beliefs of a fairly small group is out of place in this article. The issue of the Virgin Birth is not even mentioned in Unification Church, Sun Myung Moon, Divine Principle, or any other article on the UC. Why should UC beliefs be mentioned here? Steve Dufour ( talk) 20:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Steve, I think teh material you added as a subsection is now a general tutorial on UC beliefs rather than a discussion fo their position of Virgin Birth. E.g.:
And what this does NOT say is the crucial item: that the UC does not teach that Zachariah was the father of Jesus. I thought that was what you wanted to say. So this does not explain the key issue of "no teaching on Zachariah" but instead gives tutorial on salvation etc. I think you need to replace it with "UC does not formally teach that Zachariah was the father of Jesus" with a WP:Secondary reference. History2007 ( talk) 13:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
But you know that I never even wanted to work on that section, however now that it is there, should be done right. The problem still is: why is there a separate subsection on UC in a VB article? That looks just unusual. My guess is that given that Tucker was there, the other material would show other aspects of the UC beliefs, but it is still really overdosing on UC.
My suggestion is just to just say:
That way Weatherhead gets mentioned as the other user wanted, Tucker gets mentioned and it is all brief, so we do not OD on a UC tutorial. History2007 ( talk) 18:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it worth also mentioning the Qur'anic account of Mary being criticized (for being an unmarried mother) - and Jesus then speaking up from the cradle in [indirect] support of his mother? Admittedly, there is already a recommended link across to "Jesus in Islam", which contains the following description: "The Qur'an goes onto narrate that Mary ... brought [the extremely young] Jesus to the temple, where immediately she began to be taunted by all the men, excluding Zechariah, who believed in the virgin birth. The Israelites accused Mary of being a loose woman and having touched another man whilst unmarried. In response, Mary pointed to her son, telling them to talk to him ..." [which Jesus then did - according to the text, that is]. I confess, incidentally, that I find quite intriguing the above reference to Zechariah, because of my personal interest in Leslie Weatherhead's theory.-- DLMcN ( talk) 19:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
History2007 and 217.43.107.207 ... St. Paul's mission was to try and convince others that Jesus really was the "Son of God" - so surely it would have been relevant for him to emphasize the miracle of the Virgin Birth? (assuming of course that it did happen and that he knew about it). Is that a fair reflection of any of the arguments contained in references 38 to 52?-- DLMcN ( talk) 06:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)