Tis the season for virgin birth skepticism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-12-2013, 02:21 PM
Tis the season for virgin birth skepticism
We've all heard about how the virgin birth concept was very big in ancient times, and originated in pagan religions. But attempts to research this usually don't go anywhere. For instance, I've read that the Egyptian god Horus was the product of a virgin birth, but a little quicky research shows that his mom was, in fact, boinked by the re-assembled body parts of her defunct hubby. Which doesn't count as a virgin birth in my book.

There's a tremendous amount of misinformation out there - most of it spewed out by the Zeitgeist movie and the Acharya S/D.M. Murdock drivel that inspired it. So my question is - is there any RELIABLE information - by RESPECTED authors out there that would shed light on whether or not the virgin birth is a pagan concept?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mick's post
14-12-2013, 02:38 PM
RE: Tis the season for virgin birth skepticism
How do you define pagan ? Outside the Hebrew religious tradition ?

Wouldn't know, this article seems relevant, although they do warn about citations... and I lost interest about half-way down. Didn't see a non-Christian virgin birth up until that point though.

Why is it of interest, out of curiosity ?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2013, 02:39 PM (This post was last modified: 14-12-2013 03:06 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Tis the season for virgin birth skepticism
There were lots of vb's, but the manner of the birth was actually not the intent of the (invented) gospel reference to the "incident" in Isaiah.

From my brief article in the Resource Library :

a. Background :
Isaiah 7 talks about the history of King Ahaz, son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, who was king of Judah. At the time, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah, son of Remaliah, King of Israel, marched up to fight against Jerusalem, and the campaign was long and protracted. See the Syro-Ephraimite War, (Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Ephraimite_War ), and it happened in the 8th Century (734) BC. When Ahaz was loosing faith, Isaiah went to visit him, and told him to "buck up", keep the faith, and continue the war, and told him that the SIGN from god, that they were favored, was that one of his wives, (a "woman of marriageable age") would be found to be with child. The SIGN was the CHILD, (and NOT the manner of the birth). ...."And they shall name him Emmanuel" which means "god is with us". The CHILD (ie AT ALL) was the SIGN.

Any devout Jew in the time of the Roman occupation, (around 60 AD), would know that story, from Isaiah, and when they heard the words "a woman, (of marriageable age) will be found to be with child" they would connect the stories in their brains, and recognize that the gospel text's intention was to remind them of the Isaiah story, and would "harken" back to it, and realize the intent of the author was to claim that THIS child also was a sign. The general intent of the Gospel of Matthew was to claim the fulfillment of the various "prophesies", (which had at that time become a popular thing to do ( http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid257278 )
(regarding the messiah, and this one was another one of those claims/stories of fulfillment).

b. The word "virgin" is a mistranslation, of a translation. So WE have a translation, of a mis-translation, of a translation. Matthew, writing in Greek about the "virgin birth" of Jesus, quotes the Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word "παρθένος" (parthenos,), (we still use the term "parthenogenesis") while the original Hebrew text has "עלמה" (almah), which has the slightly wider meaning of an unmarried, betrothed,or newly wed woman such as in the case of Ahaz' betrothed Abijah, daughter of Zechariah. He NEVER meant to imply that he was asserting "gynecological" claims, and THAT whole business was "off-the-wall", a mistranslation, taken to ridiculous extremes, by interpreters who missed the point. THE CHILD was supposed to be the sign.

Also interesting that Matthew (1:25) only says that Joseph "knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son". It does NOT say she REMAINED a virgin. (??)

See also : Mother Goddess, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_goddess ) and Joseph Campbell, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddess ) and Courtly Love, ( http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/engl513...ourtly.htm ). The business of Mary, and her idealized state, was extremely important in the civilization/culture of the West, and in some circles remains very important today, (Lourdes & claims of "Marian" apparitions" etc., etc.)

Over and out.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
14-12-2013, 02:41 PM
RE: Tis the season for virgin birth skepticism
Stone age belief vs. stone age belief; does it really fucking matter?No

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2013, 02:44 PM
RE: Tis the season for virgin birth skepticism
(14-12-2013 02:41 PM)Crulax Wrote:  Stone age belief vs. stone age belief; does it really fucking matter?No

No Tongue That's the point...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
14-12-2013, 03:55 PM
RE: Tis the season for virgin birth skepticism
I understand, as Bucky Ball has pointed out, how the Matthew author's virgin birth account involves a Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew word "Almah" (which doesn't mean "virgin"), and how that author completely misses the boat in thinking that Isaiah 7:14 is a messianic prophecy (which anyone can see is not the case). What I'm really interested in is any reliable (read: not from the Zeitgeist movie or anything else related to Acharya S) information about any virgin birth myths that predate the Christian tradition. Why? I don't know...just a general interest in the nativity story and all its contradictions, attempts to finagle events to look like fulfilled prophecies, and other shenanigans. Having some well-documented examples of virgin birth myths outside of the Christian tradition would be useful in debates with Christians who think they originated the concept.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2013, 04:56 PM
RE: Tis the season for virgin birth skepticism
(14-12-2013 02:21 PM)Mick Wrote:  ... would shed light on whether or not the virgin birth is a pagan concept?
It may be. But we can ask ourselves another question: from whom did pagans borrow this concept?

English is not my native language.
that awkward moment between the Premortal Existence and your Resurrection
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2013, 05:11 PM (This post was last modified: 14-12-2013 06:18 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Tis the season for virgin birth skepticism
(14-12-2013 04:56 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(14-12-2013 02:21 PM)Mick Wrote:  ... would shed light on whether or not the virgin birth is a pagan concept?
It may be. But we can ask ourselves another question: from whom did pagans borrow this concept?

It may be you can try to answer that, if the question is valid. I know you won't even try. (See Doc's recent Sunday School posts about this idiotic meaningless subject, and it's implications for the "Incarnation").
BTW, in Religious/Biblical Studies, scholars no longer use the term "pagan".
All deist/theist systems are as authentic and valid as any other. There is nothing more "valid" about the Babylonian god of the armies, (Yahweh Sabaoth), than there is about any other deity. The god Baal, for example, was as real to the Hebrews as was Yahweh. It was just they agreed not to worship him, (the "Covenant").

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2013, 05:19 PM
RE: Tis the season for virgin birth skepticism
(14-12-2013 04:56 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(14-12-2013 02:21 PM)Mick Wrote:  ... would shed light on whether or not the virgin birth is a pagan concept?
It may be. But we can ask ourselves another question: from whom did pagans borrow this concept?

I think the OP is investigating where Christianity borrowed the idea from. Not the other way around.

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Monster_Riffs's post
14-12-2013, 05:46 PM
RE: Tis the season for virgin birth skepticism
(14-12-2013 05:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(14-12-2013 04:56 PM)Alla Wrote:  It may be. But we can ask ourselves another question: from whom did pagans borrow this concept?

It may be you can try to answer that, if the question is valid. I know you won't even try. (See Doc's recent Sunday School posts about this idiotic meaningless subject, and it's implications for the "Incarnation").
BTW, in Religious/Biblical Studies, scholars no longer use the term "pagan".
All deist/theist systems are as authentic and valid as any other. There is nothing more "valid" about the Babylonian god of the armies, (Yahweh Sabaoth), than there is abouut any other deity. The god Baal, for example, was as real to the Hebrews as was Yahweh. It was just they agreed not to worship him, (the "Covenant").
Noah was not Hebrew. May be some descendants of Noah broke covenants with Yahweh(Jesus Christ) became pagans and borrowed some parts of the truth(Gospel)?

English is not my native language.
that awkward moment between the Premortal Existence and your Resurrection
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: