Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus: Difference between revisions
Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) Tag: Reverted |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus/Archive 6) (bot |
||
(25 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Christianity |
{{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 Islam |
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Bible |
{{WikiProject Bible|importance=Mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Women's History |
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Women in Religion |
{{WikiProject Women in Religion|importance=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=high}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
Line 19: | Line 20: | ||
{{Archives |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90}} |
{{Archives |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90}} |
||
== |
== C R S == |
||
In five sentences,Narrate the value of virginity mary enjoyed <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— 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--> |
|||
The description as a "mistranslation" is POV. Scripture translators have considered this a perfectly acceptable translation. Others see it as controversial. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 22:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Purpose of the Ben Witherington Quote? == |
|||
:But [[Almah]] does not mean virgin. Pet the main article on the term: "scholars agree that it has nothing to do with virginity". Matthew invented a tale of virginity that did not exist in [[Isaiah 7:14]]. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 22:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Well I'm glad that modern scholars are smarter than that pesky Matthew dude! [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 22:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::It is not about being smart, they have more sources and better methodology. [[User:Cinadon36|<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b>]][[User Talk:Cinadon36|<b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b>]] 06:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::The word "almah" conveyed the concept of a woman of childbearing age who had not yet borne a child. As girls were married at 12 or 13, it followed that the almah was a virgin, but the primary idea was fecundity, not virginity. Greek culture, of course, was Western, and so virginity was the primary meaning of "parthenos". [[User:Achar Sva|Achar Sva]] ([[User talk:Achar Sva|talk]]) 12:31, 23 December 2022 (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.” |
|||
== My edits today == |
|||
Which is then followed by an embedded quote that says “As such, this story is without precedent either in Jewish or pagan literature.” |
|||
Honestly, why bother having an edit function if it is just the most insistent and persistent editor that wins regardless of all logic? |
|||
I am speaking of my reasonable edits today. |
|||
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) |
|||
I assure you I will never donate to Wikipedia and will forever disparage it’s reliability. |
|||
The mills of God grind exceeding slow but exceedingly fine. |
|||
You have been warned! [[User:BibleWatchman|BibleWatchman]] ([[User talk:BibleWatchman|talk]]) 18:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Sorry, your opinion has been grind since long ago by the mills of mainstream academia. Wikipedia has no other option but to side with mainstream academia. [[WP:NOTTHEOCRACY]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 05:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 18:19, 28 August 2024
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
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)
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)
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Top-importance Christianity articles
- B-Class Christian theology articles
- Mid-importance Christian theology articles
- Christian theology work group articles
- B-Class Saints articles
- Mid-importance Saints articles
- WikiProject Saints articles
- B-Class Catholicism articles
- High-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- Low-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- B-Class Bible articles
- Mid-importance Bible articles
- WikiProject Bible articles
- B-Class Women's History articles
- Low-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- B-Class Women in Religion articles
- High-importance Women in Religion articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- High-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Ancient Near East articles
- High-importance Ancient Near East articles
- Ancient Near East articles by assessment