Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4

Place new sections at the end, please.

Excised parthogenesis section for scrutiny

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.

There is nothing abnormal in the natural world about parthogenesis. Starfish reproduce from a broken limb, some plants reproduce asexually, even sharks are capable of fertilizing their own eggs, but the offspring is inherently female, as there is no Y chromosome present, so if Mary had conceived by parthogenesis,, which would be contrary to the Christian belief that her virginal conception was not a natural phenomenon, Jesus would have been female, and not male, leading to the possibility that the phrase was a euphemism, and not factual. The word euphemism, however, did not originate until 1656, and was not used in this manner until 1793.

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)

Celebration on 6th January

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)

You are quite right about 25 March. However, 25 December (Old Style) corresponds at present (until 2099) to 7 January. 6 January (Epiphany for others) is the day on which Armenians celebrate the birth of Jesus. Lima (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Very biased

This article is very biased, as you can see from readingg many ofthe talk archives and the text that has been removed. There is a new book coming out in September, "Jesus of Nazareth: A Realistic Portrait" (in English next year), which also says the same thing - that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier. We all know the religious viewpoint which is presented here, but any fool can see that the whole story was just made up to cover up the illegitimacy. Face it - to the 40% of the world who don't buy that brick that Mary got pregnant "by the holy spirit" it was just a euphemism for "I'm not telling". By the way, I'm a Christian, but I believe in equal rights. 2ndAmendment (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The story of the Roman soldier, complete with his name, is already in the article. Lima (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's only half of the story. You need to also explain what was meant by the words "by the holy spirit", which is that it was a euphemism for "I'm not telling". In other words, you need to provide a modern interpretation of the story, not a 2nd century explanation. The word euphemism wasn't even used in this context until the end of the 18th century. It was originally just used rhetorically. Jesus was after all a real person, and the truth of his birth needs to be told. The sentence "for which no natural explanation can be offered" also has to go, because there are four natural explanations offered - allegory, euphemism, denial and illegitimacy. That whole section on supernatural was only added because a natural explanation was added. 2ndAmendment (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)::

In Wikipedia you must support with an external source any questionable/questioned statements that you make. What's your source for saying that the two Gospel writers who said Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit were using a euphemism? Lima (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As I see it they were just reporting it as they heard it. I don't see any evidence that they made it up, as has been suggested. Most people use words a lot less polite than "euphemism". For example, I didn't want to include rape, but it seems that that is becoming a more 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)

An outside source, please. Not your own suppositions. Lima (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I wrote those two books? Please get real. 2ndAmendment (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Lima was implying anything of the sort. I believe Lima is just trying to make sure you contributions meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CS. We can't say "When the Gospel of Matthew talks about the birth of Jesus as a miracle of the Holy Spirit, it is in all actuality simply a "euphemism"...", especially not without a citation. If we are to use the word "euphemism" anywhere in this article, we need a sentence more like "Scholar X contends that the story of the Holy Spirit was actually just a euphemism". THe question I believe Lima has been asking you is "Who is scholar X"? We need to attribute the euphemism claim to a reliable source. I know you have mentioned two books generally, but you have not specifically mentioned the names/authors of those books. Does that make sense? It's just a simple matter of basic wikipedia policy which seems to have been blown overboard.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Sometimes things are so obvious that it's hard to find an actual citation. Here is an example of what one person said. "A more logical explanation was Mary was a quick-thinking Hebrew girl who had sex with her fiance, found herself pregnant, and, not wanting to be stoned, concocted the visit from "God"." This however doesn't explain why Joseph was so clueless about how Mary got pregnant, since after all, he was the aforesaid "fiance". Change fiance to anyone else and the story becomes more plausible. Add that Mary was raped and you really have a motive for denial. You have to remember that 40% of the world could not care less about Jesus and his birth and the rest are hell bent to come up with a ridiculous explanation. By the way, the story isn't a euphemism, the words are a euphemism. 2ndAmendment (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it can seem silly at times, but we do need to make sure that our readers can verify all content. This is important because at wikipedia anyone can edit it and add whatever they want to articles. In order for our readers to be able to trust our content, it needs to be verifiable (and we have guidelines that outline how to do that). What you are doing in your above post is WP:OR, which is forbidden. If you don't like what a published scholar says, you cannot improve on it by posting your own theories here on wikipedia. However, we can cite the one scholar you allude to (even if we disagree with their theories) as long as they meet WP:RS. Remember wikipedia is not about the truth, only about summarizing content that has already been published. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

However, we don't just list every article that has ever been published. Although some articles are like that. The idea is to be factual about a subject in a manner that the reader can actually learn something about the subject. It isn't OR to put things together in a comprehensive manner. The present article is far from that. 2ndAmendment (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis

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)

umm... that doesn't at all explain how it's relevant to the article. I mean, I could put a cited statement that Micheal Jordan is 6 feet 6 inches tall into the article on apples and the mere fact it's cited does not make it relevant. Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's completely irrelevant to this article, which is about a miraculous virgin birth, not the known-to-science-among-animals-but-not-humans kind of virgin birth. Besides, the Parthenogenesis is already linked at least two more times than is necessary. --Elliskev 21:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how that is irrelevant to the article. It is valid to raise a scientific side of the issue. It's just a piece of the puzzle and valid for the article to be totally NPOV. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, just stating that it's a miracle does not invalidate the scientific issues at hand. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Stating that this article is about a miraculous virgin birth does invalidate any references to a scientific side. It would be equally invalid for me to include a Religious issues section in the Parthenogenesis article stating several billion people throughout history have confirmed their belief in the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus. That section would be true, but out-of-place. --Elliskev 22:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would think at least a mention in the article on Parthenogenesis to the religious side would be totally valid. Given the number of people that hold the belief the Jesus was born of a virgin mother makes it relevant to that discussion. I'm even willing to add it myself. Merely claiming that something is miraculous doesn't put it beyond the purview of science. This is an encyclopedia and not a religious site where one POV can dominate. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess we're at an impasse. I just don't see how either subject is related to the other. Don't take this question the wrong way, but do you understand what both subjects are about? --Elliskev 23:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would be hard to not take that the wrong way. But I appreciate the redaction. I fully understand that, since the concept of parthenogenesis arose, Christian doctrine has rejected it as an explanation for the virgin birth of Jesus. But nevertheless, claiming that something is miraculous is not a defense against having a scientific exploration of the topic. The two subjects are related because parthenogenesis is the scientific term for virgin birth. Christianity relies to a certain extent on the concept that Jesus was born of a non-sexual event. Therefore, despite your protestations, it is indeed a part of the puzzle, regardless of the terminology that each camp chooses to use. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is relevant or not, the statement is definitely not NPOV. Also, I still fail to see how it is relevant to the article. How does it "add a piece to the puzzle"? I do not understand what you are saying by that because you say it is NPOV, but the only explanation I can think of for adding that info is to support a POV statement. (ie. that the virgin birth is impossible). If you are inserting that because of another reason, please let me know. Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I did not say the comment was NPOV. I said the inclusion in the article makes the article as a whole NPOV. There are many parts to the discussion of the virgin birth of Jesus, some of them religious, some of them historical, some of them discussing the etymology, and finally the scientific issue of parthenogenesis in any species. To not acknowledge the possibility that it didn't occur, or conversely to just assume that it did is to render the article POV. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [fixed typo]

Just to put this in perspective here. This article is around 5000 words. I've only inserted one sentence that makes the article NPOV. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 21:46, 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)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

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 :)

• "Harris" :
  • [[Stephen L Harris|Harris, Stephen L.]], Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
  • Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Celebration

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)

Q Gospel

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)

Historicity

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)

Snip from "Genealogy of Jesus" article

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:

Jacob was the father of Joseph,

to whom the betrothed virgin

Mary bore Jesus, called the Christ

While the Syriac Sinaiticus has

Jacob was the father of Joseph,

to whom the virgin Mary was

betrothed, was the father of Jesus

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.

---

Jesus in Islam

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)

Septuagint

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:

Christian apologists have sometimes argued that the word translated as virgin in many Christian translations of Isaiah 7:14 is justified by pointing to the Septuagint version of Isaiah, and arguing that Septuagint, which was translated by Jews, used the word virgin, so it have obviously must have been understood to mean virgin. This argument has problems one the Letter of Aristeas, which dates to second century BCE, says that the Septuagint, was a translation by Jews only of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, this is also stated by Josephus Flavius, and the Talmud. Also there is evidence, that the Septuagint was tampered with by the Church, the present Septuagint is largely a post-second century Christian translation of the Bible, used zealously by the church throughout the centuries as an indispensable apologetic instrument to defend and sustain Christological alterations of the Jewish scriptures. Furthermore, the word parthenos, which some Christian translators, insists mean virgin, a word used in the Septuagint section containing Isaiah 7:14 does not mean virgin. This can be seen by looking at other places where the Septuagint uses the word parthenos. The word parthenos, only later on in time came to mean virgin, it originally meant young woman. -- Lima (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the deletion. History2007 (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The article did say that Matthew used the Septuagint, as such it should be noted the Septuagint is known to be unreliable. --Java7837 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lima, I disagree with your above statment. The check with the LXX for the virgin issue was done already by Justin Martyr in the II century, in the dialogue with trifo if I remember well: so I suggest to keep the sentece, perhaps rewording it. You cant say that the LXX is largely a post-second century Christian translation: this was a 30 years old accademic ipotesis that has been challenges by the dead see scrolls. Research on this field changed a lot recently. A ntv (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not I who say that παρθένος was not in the LXX text at the time that Matthew was written. In reality your words show you support me and agree with my deletion of the passage. So far, only Java 7838 is in favour of keeping it. Lima (talk)

Virgin birth vs. Incarnation

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)

Scientific persepective

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)

Christians too consider that the Virgin birth of Jesus is completely excluded by what we understand of biology and genetics, and could therefore have occurred only through a direct intervention by God. Lima (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree wit Lima. Many other religious issues also defy what the physics and biology text books contain this century. e.g. Resurrection, Ascention, Apparitions, etc. And Dawkins has sold a whole pile of books, against all kinds of anti-religious topics (may he be forgiven), including the existence of God Himself, but those are outside the scope of religion. And this article is about religion. History2007 (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Same user here as the first here. I disagree. I think that the claim of a virgin birth of jesus is also a scientific one, because it makes a claim about a specific event in the universe, which is governed by the laws of science.

This article is indeed about religion, but specific claims of religion like the virgin birth make direct statements about the observable universe and are subject to science. "occurred only through a direct intervention by God" is what is criticised by science, because such a statement goes against observable scientific laws. You can't just magick away scientific critique.59.92.30.25 (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)