Virgin Mary, Ark of the Covenant

[Phatt Matt s]

The virgin birth of Jesus is the belief that Jesus was conceived in the womb of his mother Mary by the Holy Spirit and born while Mary was yet a virgin.[1] The New Testament references are Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38.

The virgin birth was universally accepted in the Christian church by the 2nd century, was enshrined in the Apostles’ Creed, and, except for several minor sects, was not seriously challenged until the 18th century, and remains a basic article of belief in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches. Muslims also accept the virgin birth of Jesus.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus


THat is right I cannot prove the Virginal birth. I already told you that.

NOw which of the Church Fathers said the VIrgin Birth was a mistranslation and which significant communion of Christians or Church believed the Virgin Birth to be a mistranslation?

THe weak claim that because the Pauline letters do not mention the Virgin birth is proof that the Gospel of Luke is Bullshit...Is Bullshit!

What people believe or not about the virgin birth, and when they cooked up the notion, (virgin-born deities were quite the fad there for a while), is totally IRRELEVANT. By your logic the fact that most people once believed the world was flat means it must BE flat. Maybe you should consider actually taking a CLASS on the Babble. One of the FIRST things main-line schools teach, (to FRESHMEN Bible students), (including Catholic ones), is that this IS a mistranslation. It also doesn't matter which Church Father said this was a mistranslation. If they admitted they LIED in general, then NOTHING they said is reliable. They were ALL deluded liars. Maybe along with a Babble class you might consider a LOGIC class. The Gospel of Luke IS bullshit. There are irreconcilable factual ERRORS in it. It was based on the Q document. I am willing to bet you never have even HEARD of "Q". You haven't, have you ?

Why is it rank beginner non-scholars, actually THINK they can go spout their shit on the internet, and that it has ANY credibility ?

Each can be classified in one of three ways:

The pagan god is not born of a virgin mother.
The birth of the pagan god is the result of a sexual encounter.
The parallel exists, but the Christian tradition antedates the pagan mythology.

Some of the claimed “virgin births” are not births at all; at least not in the normal way a woman delivers a child. A closer investigation into the mythology regarding the birth of many pagan gods will reveal some other miraculous creation that neither involves a virgin woman (This alone is enough to disqualify it as a parallel to the birth of Jesus) or a goddess. In other cases there may not have been sexual intercourse, but the woman or goddess simply was not a virgin before conception.

One example is the Roman god, Mithras. The “virgin birth” claim is often encountered in this regard, much to the dismay of those like Bucky Ball who either have never taken the time to research modern scholarship on it or fail to understand what is written. Mithras falls under this classification because, according to the myth, he was not born of a woman at all.

Manfred Clauss, professor of ancient history at the Free University of Berlin, explains, “The sequence of images from the mythical account of Mithras’ life and exploits begins, so far as we can make out, with the god’s birth. The literary sources here are few but unmistakable: Mithras was known as the rock-born god” (cf. The Roman Cult of Mithras, pg 62). This is nothing at all like the birth of Christ, yet the claim is made again and again by those who are uneducated and whose brains cannot comprehend what they read.

We can talk about Krishna and some of the other Pagan god Krishna who is often used as an example.