Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The angel didn't tell her when she would conceive. The obvious assumption is that she would conceive after having sexual relations with her husband. Her questioning "how can this be" only makes sense if she was not expecting to have sexual relations ever, or else why ask? We all know how babies are made...
So you read into it against the plain meaning of the text that she thought it was some distant future event. Sure. ok. I'm sorry, Mike. I can't believe you really believe that.
Quote:
"Others" do believe it, as in literally every Christian body formed before the 1500s...
I'm under no obligation to make the case to you. I'm sharing these things with you for your benefit. Take it or leave it.
You don't KNOW that, though. You have a collection of writings that you believe are representative of all of Christian thought. They are not inspired, and they certainly do contradict the clear reading of Scripture.
No, Paul isn't God - but I put a whole lot more stock in his opinion than I do in yours.
So first you're going to tell me that Paul's letters can't be completely trusted because of his "weird ideas", and then you're going to imply that "adding to what the Bible says" is somehow wrong.
Does inconsistency and self-contradiction not bother you? Because it would bother me.
What in the world are you talking about? Your church is the one that has added a whole bunch of stuff that isn't in the Bible. Your posts imply that you think Catholic policy is as important as Scripture.
The adulation of virginity is neither misguided nor does it come from a view that sex is "dirty".
We know from Scripture that celibacy is a higher calling than marriage. There's no way BF can deny that.
Nope. Don't see that. Paul's opinion was that it was better to remain unmarried for the sake of being a missionary. But nowhere do we see that it's "better". And certainly Scripture tells us the exact opposite in regards to a woman marrying. She is to have relations with her hubby. That is a plain teaching of Scripture.
Honestly, Mike. it's ok. You can admit that there is just no Scriptural evidence for it. And I really can't figure out why it's so important to hang on to the idea. There are plenty of great men and women in the Bible that were married and had babies. There is nothing wrong with it.
It is not. Paul had a bunch of weird ideas about sex and the role of women in the church. Paul wasn't God. The only thing about the virgin birth (if you think that is what the Greek meant) is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Anything more than that is adding to what the Bible says about it.
Paul wrote those letters under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The one area where he says it's HIM that says it and not God is where he said it's better to remain unmarried. He was an apostle, and his writings are God's Word. It's as if God was speaking them in your ear. They are to be believed.
So you read into it against the plain meaning of the text that she thought it was some distant future event. Sure. ok. I'm sorry, Mike. I can't believe you really believe that.
I didn't say "distant", but the plain meaning of the text is that Mary genuinely did not understand how she could conceive a child when she had made a vow of virginity.
If she was expecting to have sexual relations soon, she wouldn't have bothered to ask how she could conceive as that would be obvious. She was not asking the angel for a lesson on the birds and the bees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
You don't KNOW that, though. You have a collection of writings that you believe are representative of all of Christian thought. They are not inspired, and they certainly do contradict the clear reading of Scripture.
Centuries of Christians saw no contradiction between Scripture and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, I don't see why I should see a contradiction. Centuries of Christians who were intimately familiar with Scripture saw no problem with the belief. Even Luther and Calvin had no problem with the belief.
Who was the first person to ever openly question it, and when?
Honestly, Mike. it's ok. You can admit that there is just no Scriptural evidence for it. And I really can't figure out why it's so important to hang on to the idea. There are plenty of great men and women in the Bible that were married and had babies. There is nothing wrong with it.
LOL. I'm not the one who needs Scriptural evidence in order to believe something. You do. I'm just trying to show you how the Scripture does not contradict belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
There is nothing wrong with getting married and having babies. I'm married with children myself, yet I have no problem conceding that celibacy is a higher calling.
Yes, to the extent that you consider anything a church added to the religion to be as important as basic belief.
Quote:
You just told me that Paul had "weird ideas". Is it acceptable to question Scripture, but unacceptable to build on to it? Why?
It is critical to question Scripture. It's the only way to understand such cryptic writing. It' fine to build on what you understand, up to the point that you think the additions are infallible.
Quote:
Policy? That's not a theological term.
If you don't understand what I meant, you are probably the only one who doesn't. Call it doctrine if that makes you happy.
Yes, to the extent that you consider anything a church added to the religion to be as important as basic belief.
It is critical to question Scripture. It's the only way to understand such cryptic writing. It' fine to build on what you understand, up to the point that you think the additions are infallible.
If you don't understand what I meant, you are probably the only one who doesn't. Call it doctrine if that makes you happy.
So what I'm getting from you is that either:
A) it's acceptable to believe that Scripture is infallible, but it's unacceptable to believe that the Church is infallible
or
B) it's not acceptable to believe that anything is infallible; neither Scripture nor the Church
Side note: yes, doctrine would be a more appropriate term
Has there be any scientific explanation of how a virgin can conceive?
In the occult world,a sucubus can have sex with a man and steal his semen ,give it to the incubus,who then have sex with a virgin and impregnate her
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
