mary, virgin or not

[InvestigateTruth]

Humans were/are not capable of asexual reproduction as it stands, so Mary was definitely not a virgin in light of pregnancy.

Did human create themselves? Note that human came to existance, while there was a time they didn't exist on earth. The current science believes in evolution, though does not know/is not capable of creating the initial condition to create life from dust. Thus, just because science does not know how it happend, does not mean evolution is not true.
Same way, just because science does not know the condition that a woman can become pregnant without a male, doesn't mean it cannot happen, as the condition is certainly easier to happen in a female body, than that the condition which already did happen in the beginning of evolution.

On the other hand, it's also not possible to reject the existance of God, the same way His existance cannot be proved.
Note that even the idea of evolution is not necessarily contradictory with the Belief in God.
The creation of a human body is not “making something out of nothing”; it is rather a bringing together of elements which before were scattered, though it has taken a long time to happen (evolution)

It's straightforward enough in that context short of making embellishments and fabrications. To say it's possible that such a thing comes about otherwise in such a short period of time through evolutionary standards is really stretching the facts to the point of nonsense.

Well, you are more than welcome to have your openion, and call it nonesense.
But your reasoning is not logical. You are saying that because evolution has taken such a long time, it's not possible for a human to come to existance in such a short time without father.
No, we are talking about the condition of pragnency of Mary, without father. after that it only would take 9 months.

 

[arcanum]

Yep....it "can" mean virgin but the problem is Metthew uses one word for virgin and Luke uses another. Matthew tries to tie prophecy back to Isaiah 7:14..but if one read Isaiah 14 in context they'd realize the person being described is not a virgin but a young girl/woman and the context of Isaiah is about Israel and nothing to do with Yeshua.

this...

 

[Sleeppy]

Yep....it "can" mean virgin but the problem is Metthew uses one word for virgin and Luke uses another. Matthew tries to tie prophecy back to Isaiah 7:14..but if one read Isaiah 14 in context they'd realize the person being described is not a virgin but a young girl/woman and the context of Isaiah is about Israel and nothing to do with Yeshua.

Seems like people like to forget that prophecy often had more than one fulfillment.

What does Matt. and Luke's different words for virgin have to do with it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Did human create themselves? Note that human came to existance, while there was a time they didn't exist on earth. The current science believes in evolution, though does not know/is not capable of creating the initial condition to create life from dust. Thus, just because science does not know how it happend, does not mean evolution is not true.
Same way, just because science does not know the condition that a woman can become pregnant without a male, doesn't mean it cannot happen, as the condition is certainly easier to happen in a female body, than that the condition which already did happen in the beginning of evolution.

On the other hand, it's also not possible to reject the existance of God, the same way His existance cannot be proved.
Note that even the idea of evolution is not necessarily contradictory with the Belief in God.
The creation of a human body is not “making something out of nothing”; it is rather a bringing together of elements which before were scattered, though it has taken a long time to happen (evolution)



Well, you are more than welcome to have your openion, and call it nonesense.
But your reasoning is not logical. You are saying that because evolution has taken such a long time, it's not possible for a human to come to existance in such a short time without father.
No, we are talking about the condition of pragnency of Mary, without father. after that it only would take 9 months.

I'm a proponet of evolution.

My point is that at the current stage of evolution, for humans, a virgin birth is impossible. Humans just dont have the capability for asexual reproduction which would enable this to occur.

 

[Alceste]

what about Adam/fisrt human on earth.

I am intrested to to see scientific explination for it.

Science does not believe in Adam. Surely you have heard that the scientific explanation for the origins of life on earth bears no resemblance to any religious creation myth?

 

[Alceste]

I agree. That's why I added what I did about the two later gospels copying from each other and copying from Mark. Interesting that the book of Mark, the supposed earliest of all the gospels, totally omits the virgin birth narrative. Even Paul's letters, which are earlier than Mark, seem to not know anything about a virgin birth.

Well, the early Catholics had thousands of books on their hands that they had to cobble together into the semi-coherent narrative we call the Bible. It's no wonder a few gospels jumped out at them for referencing a few details from OT prophesies about the Messiah. Those little details provide the thin thread of "story" that ties the whole cumbersome thing together.

 

[Sleeppy]

Science does not believe in Adam. Surely you have heard that the scientific explanation for the origins of life on earth bears no resemblance to any religious creation myth?

Do we know what it believes? Where did life originate? Where did each type of life originate? Where did humans originate?

I haven't done much research on it yet.

 

[waitasec]

Do we know what it believes? Where did life originate? Where did each type of life originate? Where did humans originate?

I haven't done much research on it yet.

in empirical truth...

 

[Quiddity]

in empirical truth...

That is too broad of a brush and is thrown out far too often. There is a hierarchy of how solid the different sciences are. For example, abiogensis is no where near as solid as micro evolution. Whereby micro evolution has 100% emperical data (for example) and abiogensis has 10% or whatever. The rest is just metaphysics and not necessarily dependant on emperical data.

 

[cablescavenger]

i think they just wanted to prove how jewish jesus was?

a virgin getting pregnant wasn't a good idea at the time...so in comes joseph to save the day...and look he's related to king david too!
the loop hole that has a hole no less...oops

consider the ignorant time this story came from

There are a few times where lineages are mentioned in the bible, and in I have read that none of them are realistic, and are, as you say, just a means to an end.

 

[arcanum]

There are a few times where lineages are mentioned in the bible, and in I have read that none of them are realistic, and are, as you say, just a means to an end.

The different contradictory lineages between matthew and luke was one of the first things that bothered me theologically as a kid growing up in church.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Seems like people like to forget that prophecy often had more than one fulfillment.

Possibly but again, when Isaiah is read in context instead of pulling out a verse here or there....7:14 has less to do with an actual "virgin".

What does Matt. and Luke's different words for virgin have to do with it?

A lot. But I also suspect the writer(s) of the book of Matthew were stretching hard to tie the Isaiah prophecy of the arrival of a military leader to Yeshua. Luke follows suite using a different, albeit more fitting word, for an actual virgin but that writer(s) suffers the same issue of copying his material possibly from Matthew and definitely from Mark. Mark, the supposed earliest of the 4 gospels is silent on the supposed prophecy of Isaiah, silent on the supposed virgin birth...and seems to be slightly different details concerning the resurrection. The other gospels come onto the scene much later ad-libbing information that seem to not exist. Paul is silent on the Isaiah prophecy and the virgin birth as well.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well, the early Catholics had thousands of books on their hands that they had to cobble together into the semi-coherent narrative we call the Bible. It's no wonder a few gospels jumped out at them for referencing a few details from OT prophesies about the Messiah. Those little details provide the thin thread of "story" that ties the whole cumbersome thing together.

I agree....:yes:

 

[waitasec]

That is too broad of a brush and is thrown out far too often. There is a hierarchy of how solid the different sciences are. For example, abiogensis is no where near as solid as micro evolution. Whereby micro evolution has 100% emperical data (for example) and abiogensis has 10% or whatever. The rest is just metaphysics and not necessarily dependant on emperical data.

and would you say religious faith adheres to theses principles?

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quiddity]

and would you say religious faith adheres to theses principles?

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope. Don't see why they should. Religions are making metaphysical claims, not scientific ones.

 

[cablescavenger]

The different contradictory lineages between matthew and luke was one of the first things that bothered me theologically as a kid growing up in church.

You are more cerebral than me then, I gave up too easy

I struggled with In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth....

 

[outhouse]

and would you say religious faith adheres to theses principles?

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not at all.


But they do have a long history when it comes to not only using previous sources, but they blatantly copied these sources ta boot.

In this case their own writing use this exact mythology, besides other cultures in the area at that exact time.

 

[Prophet]

Nope. Don't see why they should. Religions are making metaphysical claims, not scientific ones.

It is a scientific claim to say that the metaphysical entity you posit as God directly interferes with physical reality in miracles such as the supposed virgin birth. I believe this is a red herring.

 

[Pegg]

Actually the Sumerians and the Egyptian culture predate the timeline given for the supposed biblical flood. There's no evidence to support the Sumerians were decedents from Noah's sons.

the sumerians had interesting'' timelines...like kings who reigned for thousands of years.

the biblical timeline is far more reliable then any other ancient cutlure imo.

 

[waitasec]

It is a scientific claim to say that the metaphysical entity you posit as God directly interferes with physical reality in miracles such as the supposed virgin birth. I believe this is a red herring.

i have to agree with this.