Augustus
…
The idea that Mary was born free from original sin?
That’s not even in the Bible is it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bible contradictions
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
The idea that Mary was born free from original sin?
That’s not even in the Bible is it?
Ajax
Active Member
Τhe Immaculate Conception including of course the Virgin Birth.The idea that Mary was born free from original sin?
That’s not even in the Bible is it?
Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
What was the "deliberate misinterpretation" in your opinion?
The IC is Mary, not Jesus.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I thought that was Franco Harris:
Oh, my bad. Reception, not Conception. Yes, the Immaculate Conception was the idea that somehow Mary was without sin. That seems a bit contradictory to me. It is Roman Catholic doctrine and is not in the Bible.
Ajax
Active Member
That the author took an irrelevant prophesy (Isaiah 7:14) which was for king Ahaz to witness and made up a miracle story where a woman became pregnant and remained virgin even after she gave birth to her son.
That is at best a thoughtless and ignorant error, or at worst a distortion.
Ajax
Active Member
Luke who had limited knowledge of Jesus life, as it appears from him copying almost 70% of Matthew's gospel (even word for word), copied also the virgin birth.
Ajax
Active Member
Can you explain the reason please?
The ancient world didn't possess a thoroughly modern understanding that male semen and female ovum were both needed to form a fetus;[6] this cultural milieu was conducive to miraculous birth stories,[7] and tales of virgin birth and the impregnation of mortal women by deities were well known in the 1st-century Greco-Roman world and Second Temple Jewish works. Virgin birth of Jesus - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Your Wikipedia reference is irrelevant to your claim. What, precisely, did the author invent?
Ajax
Active Member
The virgin birth of course, based on Isaiah 7:14, which firstly had nothing to do with a virgin per se and secondly and most importantly was a sign for king Ahaz to witness, even naming the enemies that the king was afraid of.
The Wikipedia reference is important to understand the people's beliefs at that time, i.e how easy it was for them to believe such a story.
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Although I also blame Paul for making Jesus into a deity, I can't agree with you that "one God" and "one lord" are equivalent.
I agree.
@Ajax, we seem to be talking past each other, and I may well be at fault for this. Let me try again. You wrote:
Again, I agree with you that Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with virgin birth or a first century C.E. messiah. (In fact, I think I first addressed this on RF back in 2005.)
But, given the prevailing beliefs in the late first century C.E. diaspora, it's more than possible that the apologist author of gMt was conveying what he understood to be the message of the "sign" given in that verse. You and I are free to reject that understanding, but to denigrate it as a dishonest and deliberate misinterpretation seems to border on baseless ad hominem.
Ajax
Active Member
@Jayhawker Soule, Please let's be realistic. The author wanted to push an extraordinary but often quoted claim at the times, of a virgin birth. Lots of other deities and Roman emperors claimed that, so it was a necessity that our "hero" must be born in the same way, especially if we are to tell people that he is the Son of God. The author of the Matthew gospel is not Matthew the disciple, otherwise he (and the other writers of synoptic gospels) would know the resurrection of Jesus' friend Lazarus (unless that is a fabrication also). Therefore he could not know exactly how Jesus was born. So he found a verse in the OT which speaks about a "virgin" birth and he combined both of them. The author who must have been familiar with Torah (he has included at least 18 prophecies in the Gospel), is known to write disputed stories like the Magi and the trip to Egypt among others, based on irrelevant prophecies in OT.
And as Dave Hume said, what is more likely, that the natural laws broke down, or that a Jewish man wrote a lie, 2000 years ago I may add?
Last edited:
Hubris is often infected with the needless malady of not knowing what one does not know. Oh, well ...
... have a great week.
Ajax
Active Member
You too my friend. And thank you for a civilized discussion.
Last edited:
The idea that Mary was born free from original sin?
That’s not even in the Bible is it?
Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia
No, it is not in the Bible. That is a Catholic myth.
Paul most definitely did not make Jesus into a deity. Jesus is and always has been one-third of the Trinity/Godhead.
Read my signature below...