Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Flip

Original poster

A question for Christians..

15 replies

Dynasty · 01/03/2014 20:25

If you were to find out that the virgin birth was a myth, Joseph was his father, that Jesus lived a normal human life and was married, would this shake you faith or not?

OP posts:

LaurieFairyCake · 01/03/2014 20:31

Nope. I already believe Jesus was married and had a 'normal' life til 33 ish when he began his ministry and then was crucified less than a year later.

Don't care about the virgin birth - it's just not that interesting to me though I appreciate it's central to Catholic faith. Virgin means something different though in Aramaic?

What's lovely about the story for me is that Joseph stood by a pregnant girl and believed her when she said it had come from God - those folks are no different to us and it would have been just as hard then.

They had sex after and had plenty of further children.

Even if she had sex with someone, God entered her, either at the beginning or the foetus - I just don't mind.

Original poster

Dynasty · 01/03/2014 20:33

I totally agree with you Laurie, what denomination are you btw?
So there may well be descendents of Mary in the world today, amazing!

OP posts:

LaurieFairyCake · 01/03/2014 20:35

No denomination - attended a Pentecostal, c of e, Methodist and baptist churches over the years.

I'm a very liberal Christian though.

Piscivorus · 01/03/2014 20:43

No, not a problem for me. As Laurie has ably said the virgin birth may be a symbolic way of saying this child was very special and not just a normal baby.

I believe the Son of God was a spiritual title, not necessarily a genetic one, if that makes sense.

Original poster

Dynasty · 01/03/2014 20:48

I think it's possible for Jesus to be divine without the virgin birth. I think God sent a special part of himself to enter as the soul of Jesus, IYSWIM

OP posts:

stressedHEmum · 02/03/2014 09:33

not really. I do believe in the VB, but it's not something that would crush me if it wasn't true. The Jewish connection of sin and the male line is important in giving authenticity to Jesus Messiahship in a Jewish setting, but there are other ways that God could have made Jesus sinless.

I always think that the unsung hero in it all was Joseph. He seems to be a really decent bloke.

Helpyourself · 02/03/2014 10:03

No it wouldn't shake my faith.
Faith is just that- trust not knowledge. The facts really don't matter.

evelynj · 02/03/2014 10:30

I'm not sure. Raised by staunch Presbyterian parents there are parts of the bible I don't believe in or can't agree with but my faith is still ingrained. Not sure whether it's because I have faith or been drummed into me.

A lot in the bible is one persons opinion/translation so is it alright to be a Christian & still sort of. Pick & choose what you believe?

I think there are more important parts to worry about but good to hear there are some liberal Christians :)

AnnaBegins · 02/03/2014 10:37

I'm not sure it would matter to me either, although I do believe in it, as something very close to what you said about God sending a part of himself to be part of Jesus (and yet being one and the same at the same time... Trinity takes some getting my head around).

Btw, it did take a visit from an angel to convince Joseph to do the decent thing - he was about to break off the betrothal!

stressedHEmum · 02/03/2014 14:08

Aye, I know that he was going to break it off, but he was going to do it quietly, so as not to humiliate Mary. And he did believe the angel in his dreams, so he must have been open to God. if I dreamt about an angel, I don't know that I'd accept it, tbh.

For a man of his time, he does seem to be a bit more concerned with the outcome for Mary than you might expect. And then he went on to raise Jesus as his own son, so I think he was a pretty good bloke,

Snowwhite456 · 02/03/2014 16:45

Yes absolutely.
Makes the bible full of untruths, so it would merely become an inaccurate historical book.

DioneTheDiabolist · 02/03/2014 21:31

Wouldn't bother me at all.

AMumInScotland · 03/03/2014 10:24

Most Christians in the UK are fairly liberal, and take the writings of the Bible as being the history of how people have related to God over time, rather than every aspect of it being literally accurate. I think the US tends to be much heavier on biblical fundamentalism, where it's seen as practically dictated word by word by God and any errors must be problems with translation. Some in the UK believe that too, but they're more of a (vocal) minority here.

I don't think the biology/genetics changes the central teaching that Jesus gave during his ministry, about how we can relate to God and how we ought to relate to each other.

It would be more significant if someone was to 'prove' the end of the story was totally inaccurate - if Jesus wasn't crucified, that would make more difference than the myths around his conception.

winterhat · 03/03/2014 10:31

No. I'm not a fundamentalist and I think the important thing is the teachings of Jesus.

cheapskatemum · 03/03/2014 17:04

No, the Resurrection is the important bit for me.

Flip