Jump to content

Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Very biased: we need a source for any content in the article in order for verification purposes
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus/Archive 6) (bot
 
(568 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top|jesus-work-group = yes|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=high|saints=yes|saints-importance=Mid|theology-work-group=yes|theology-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Saints|class=B|attention=yes|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|core-topics-work-group = yes|importance=Top|jesus-work-group = yes|importance=High|attention=yes|nested=yes}}
{{Project Catholicism|class=B|importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Bible|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Women in Religion|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=high}}
}}
}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
'''Archives''': [[Talk:Virgin birth/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[Talk:Virgin birth/Archive 2|Archive 2]], [[Talk:Virgin birth/Archive 3|Archive 3]], [[Talk:Virgin birth/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K
Place new sections at the end, please.
|counter = 6

|minthreadsleft = 2
== Excised parthogenesis section for scrutiny ==
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archives |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90}}


== C R S ==
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.


In five sentences,Narrate the value of virginity mary enjoyed <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/102.91.72.33|102.91.72.33]] ([[User talk:102.91.72.33#top|talk]]) 16:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:There is nothing abnormal in the natural world about parthogenesis.<!--"immaculate conception" is a completely different concept: see, below, #Immaculate Conception distinct from virginal conception; see also [[Immaculate Conception#Common misinterpretations]].--> Starfish reproduce from a broken limb,<!--relevance?--> some plants reproduce [[asexual reproduction|asexually]],<!--relevance?--> even sharks are capable of fertilizing their own eggs,<!--relevance?--> but the offspring is inherently female, as there is no [[Y chromosome]] present,<ref>[http://www.nova.edu/ocean/ghri/cnn_virginshark.html Scientists report virgin shark birth]</ref> so if Mary had conceived by parthogenesis,<!--"immaculately" - again an erroneous use of this term-->, 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{{what|date=May 2008}} was a euphemism,{{fact|date=May 2008}} and not factual. The word euphemism, however, did not originate until 1656, and was not used in this manner{{what|date=June 2008}}<!--what manner?--> until 1793.<!--relevance?--><ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/euphemism
Online Etymology Dictionary]</ref>


== Purpose of the Ben Witherington Quote? ==
[[Special:Contributions/63.166.226.83|63.166.226.83]] ([[User talk:63.166.226.83|talk]]) 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


So under historicity we see it says “Conservative scholars argue that despite the uncertainty of the details, the gospel birth narratives trace back to historical, or at least much earlier pre-gospel traditions.”
== Celebration on 6th January ==


Which is then followed by an embedded quote that says “As such, this story is without precedent either in Jewish or pagan literature.”
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 day]]s in England. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lima|Lima]] ([[User talk:Lima|talk]]) 04:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


Why is that there? This quote not only has absolutely nothing to do with the preceding paragraph it is also patently false considering ”virgin birth” mythology has been found in numerous non-Christian sources (including Alexander the Great). [[Special:Contributions/2601:603:5000:D80:F5F3:CCE7:F4F2:196E|2601:603:5000:D80:F5F3:CCE7:F4F2:196E]] ([[User talk:2601:603:5000:D80:F5F3:CCE7:F4F2:196E|talk]]) 05:14, 28 August 2024 (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. [[User:2ndAmendment|2ndAmendment]] ([[User talk:2ndAmendment|talk]]) 16:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
:The story of the Roman soldier, complete with his name, is already in the article. [[User:Lima|Lima]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:2ndAmendment|2ndAmendment]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Lima|Lima]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:2ndAmendment|2ndAmendment]] ([[User talk:2ndAmendment|talk]]) 17:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::An outside source, please. Not your own suppositions. [[User:Lima|Lima]] ([[User talk:Lima|talk]]) 17:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Are you suggesting that I wrote those two books? Please get real. [[User:2ndAmendment|2ndAmendment]] ([[User talk: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.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 21:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:19, 28 August 2024

C R S

[edit]

In five sentences,Narrate the value of virginity mary enjoyed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.91.72.33 (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of the Ben Witherington Quote?

[edit]

So under historicity we see it says “Conservative scholars argue that despite the uncertainty of the details, the gospel birth narratives trace back to historical, or at least much earlier pre-gospel traditions.”

Which is then followed by an embedded quote that says “As such, this story is without precedent either in Jewish or pagan literature.”

Why is that there? This quote not only has absolutely nothing to do with the preceding paragraph it is also patently false considering ”virgin birth” mythology has been found in numerous non-Christian sources (including Alexander the Great). 2601:603:5000:D80:F5F3:CCE7:F4F2:196E (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virgin_birth_of_Jesus&oldid=1242780995"