• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:88] Why was Mary confused?

She was betrothed. It's like engagement. She was soon to be married.
I still have no idea what your point is. I know what a betrothal is and 6 months isnt 'soon.'

The angel explained it in point 35.
 
I still have no idea what your point is. I know what a betrothal is and 6 months isnt 'soon.'

The angel explained it in point 35.
6 months is much less than 40 years. Why wouldn't Mary have just assumed that she would get pregnant in the normal way? Abraham did. Zechariah did.
 
6 months is much less than 40 years.
that doesnt answer the comment.

Why wouldn't Mary have just assumed that she would get pregnant in the normal way? Abraham did. Zechariah did.
He told her it would be out of the ordinary (in point 25) and like any normal person, Mary asked 'how?'

Again...please explain why this point regarding her virginity is of question to you?
 
that doesnt answer the comment.


He told her it would be out of the ordinary (in point 25) and like any normal person, Mary asked 'how?'

Again...please explain why this point regarding her virginity is of question to you?
The angel only said that the child would be great.

My point is that her question proves that she intended to remain a virgin, and that she was a virgin her entire life.
 
The angel only said that the child would be great.
He said this:
Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.​

So who wouldn't have questions about how that was going to happen? And then his response answered her questions.

My point is that her question proves that she intended to remain a virgin, and that she was a virgin her entire life.
You are claiming she intended to remain a virgin? Why? For what reason? And we werent discussing her entire life. But again, why would she do that or desire that?
 
He said this:
Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.​

So who wouldn't have questions about how that was going to happen? And then his response answered her questions.

Zechariah. Abraham. Samson's parents.


You are claiming she intended to remain a virgin? Why? For what reason? And we werent discussing her entire life. But again, why would she do that or desire that?
Because she consecrated herself a virgin to God.
 
Zechariah. Abraham. Samson's parents.
Are you able to articulate an answer or not? Are you saying those people wouldnt also question what Mary told them the angel said? I'm sure they would. She shared it with Elizabeth.

What is the point you are trying to make here? Are you deliberately diverting from the topic?

Because she consecrated herself a virgin to God.
Ok, so? Let's see that? What about it? Please relate that specifically to your OP and what you have been questioning. Can you articulate this or not? You have been dancing around this for many posts.
 
Countless people seek to discredit Christianity by finding fault with the Bible. They find a passage that they don't understand and swear it can't possibly be true therefore nothing else in the Bible can be true. Well, the fact that they choose not to seek the understanding that Christians get from the Bible does not discredit the book. For most of these people if they watched Jesus walk on water they wouldn't believe. Heck, if they themselves were healed they wouldn't believe. Their faith that God DOESN'T exist is complete and unquestionable to them. In fact it's so unquestionable that they can't conceive of how anyone else could have equal faith that whether the stories of the Bible are scientifically provable or not the message is the word of God.

People are not seeking to discredit Christianity or the Bible. The postings you object to are from people objecting to Christians using the Bible quotes to justify their meddling in people personal decisions about their private lives: Who one marries, has sex with, when they have sex, how many children they decide to have, when they have children, whether they get an abortion, how they raise their kids, whether they believe in God or not, where they come from, who they adopt, where they live, how much they make, what ethnic festivals they celebrate, none of that is any for your business and yet you state your dogma and your Bible like it's a permit to invade people personal life.
 
Countless people seek to discredit Christianity by finding fault with the Bible. They find a passage that they don't understand and swear it can't possibly be true therefore nothing else in the Bible can be true. Well, the fact that they choose not to seek the understanding that Christians get from the Bible does not discredit the book. For most of these people if they watched Jesus walk on water they wouldn't believe. Heck, if they themselves were healed they wouldn't believe. Their faith that God DOESN'T exist is complete and unquestionable to them. In fact it's so unquestionable that they can't conceive of how anyone else could have equal faith that whether the stories of the Bible are scientifically provable or not the message is the word of God.


Next time some 15 year old comes up to you and tells you "I really don't know how this coulda happened. God musta done it", you gonna believe them?

Why believe one from over 2000 years ago? And if you remain just a big skeptical about her claims, does that automatically mean you hate God and America and everything good and you don't want to take personal responsibility for your personal actions?
 
Next time some 15 year old comes up to you and tells you "I really don't know how this coulda happened. God musta done it", you gonna believe them?

Why believe one from over 2000 years ago? And if you remain just a big skeptical about her claims, does that automatically mean you hate God and America and everything good and you don't want to take personal responsibility for your personal actions?
I interpreted the OP as someone asking a specific question with designs on discrediting the Bible. I now understand that wasn't the case. Either way, however, whether Mary's intent was to remain a virgin or not is immaterial to everything else in the Bible.
 
The angel only told her that she would get pregnant. Mary was the only one who brought up virginity.
According to a book written by a bunch of unknown people, revised numerous times over the past 1,000 years.
 
According to a book written by a bunch of unknown people, revised numerous times over the past 1,000 years.
Moderator's Warning:
These sorts of comments are not going to fly in the Theology forum any longer. The Theology forum has special rules that go with it.
- Threads and posts that are critical of religion or its spiritual aspects in a broad fashion, or are focused on attacking non-belief, are not allowed.
- Skeptical posts/threads from a non-religious basis, or ones deemed overly antagonistic towards religious beliefs, will be considered “trolling”.
Ergo if you are posting in Theology, you will be posting in a civilized and respectful manner. No more of this in any thread in Theology.

This goes for EVERYONE. The rules of the Theology Forum are quite clear, and I shan't be giving out mod warnings in the future about this. Theists are to be respectful to Atheists. Atheists are to be respectful to Theists. Everyone is to be respectful to Everyone else. These are the rules of this forum, is that understood? There are no more warnings for this. Failure to abide by this warning may result in moderator action and/or thread banning.
All posts made prior to this warning are still subject to moderator review and action.
 
An angel came to a young betrothed woman and told her she would bear a son. She then asked how this would happen.

But this question makes no sense. She knows how babies are made. There is only one explanation: she was intending to remain a virgin. Otherwise, it's obvious how she would get pregnant.

Mary was not married (but betrothed, pledged to be married) to Joseph at the time of the visitation as evidenced in Luke.

In Matthew we find she is now married at the time she was found to be with child, but the marriage not yet been consummated.
 
Last edited:
Forum: a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
An angel came to a young betrothed woman and told her she would bear a son. She then asked how this would happen.But this question makes no sense. There is only one explanation: she was intending to remain a virgin. Otherwise, it's obvious how she would get pregnant.
You're leaving out a big part of the story. The part that made the virgin birth a virgin birth.
You're missing the point I'm making.
The angel told Mary that she would get pregnant without having sex. Anybody would ask how that could possibly happen.
According to the Mormons, God (who is totally a dude) came down from Heaven came down and said "Hey baby, I'm like God and stuff" and she did Him.
Skepticism: a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
Next time some 15 year old comes up to you and tells you "I really don't know how this coulda happened. God musta done it", you gonna believe them?Why believe one from over 2000 years ago? And if you remain just a bit skeptical about her claims, does that automatically mean you hate God and America and everything good and you don't want to take personal responsibility for your personal actions?
Theology: The study of the nature of God and religious belief. Religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed.
It's all a myth. No virgin birth. If there was a Mary, she was obviously pregnant from someone else prior to marrying Joseph, if there was a Joseph. The words were clearly put in her mouth by the myth-makers who wanted to claim a "virgin birth" of the "Son of God". This is not theology, this is a story from the Book of Myths, also called the Bible.
They were married but she remained a virgin. It's a part of why she's regarded so highly by those who trace their tradition back to the time of Christ. In fact the oldest hymn that we know of was written in praise of Mary!
Many Catholics Are in Doubt:Catholic reference works reveal that Catholic scholars have had doubts that Mary remained a virgin all her life. The Bible itself several times mentions Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters.” Catholic author J. Gilles, concluded: "The FOUR CANONICAL GOSPELS provide concordant evidence . . . that Jesus had real brothers and sisters in his family. . . . In the face of this coherent block of proof the traditional position [of the Catholic Church] seems vulnerable and fragile.”
What a bogus citation of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here's what it actually says:
"The perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady was taught and proposed to our belief not merely by the councils and creeds, but also by the early Fathers."
Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting in which opposing arguments are put forward.
to argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.
Humor: stuff that's funny
.. around here it's just an opportunity to piss in someone else's bowl of Wheaties
And now look who's tinkling in somebody's Post Toasties? ;)
It's tax season. I'm drinking coffee by the gallon and it's gotta go somewhere!
History: What happened in the past
The history of the Bible? Many of the Old Testament stories are thousands of years old. Some of the stories likely go back well over 5000 years.
Which is just another one of many pagan beliefs adopted by the church to "accommodate the “pagan masses” that were streaming into the church"...
According to a book written by a bunch of unknown people, revised numerous times over the past 1,000 years.
Moderator: someone who warns debaters that the posting of theology, humor, skepticism and/or history of religion in theological discussions is disrespectful.

Problem: Find the disrespect in this thread. You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
 
Moderator's Warning:
These sorts of comments are not going to fly in the Theology forum any longer. The Theology forum has special rules that go with it.
- Threads and posts that are critical of religion or its spiritual aspects in a broad fashion, or are focused on attacking non-belief, are not allowed.
- Skeptical posts/threads from a non-religious basis, or ones deemed overly antagonistic towards religious beliefs, will be considered “trolling”.
Ergo if you are posting in Theology, you will be posting in a civilized and respectful manner. No more of this in any thread in Theology.

This goes for EVERYONE. The rules of the Theology Forum are quite clear, and I shan't be giving out mod warnings in the future about this. Theists are to be respectful to Atheists. Atheists are to be respectful to Theists. Everyone is to be respectful to Everyone else. These are the rules of this forum, is that understood? There are no more warnings for this. Failure to abide by this warning may result in moderator action and/or thread banning.
All posts made prior to this warning are still subject to moderator review and action.


I see the point in the rules, but there’s a fine line between being disrespectful and being critical. If they are seen as the same thing, then there’s nothing left to debate in a debate forum.
 
I think the rules makes it rather clear...there's no room for skeptics in this forum...

"A forum for the discussion of religion and spirituality from a theological, faith-based foundation."
 
I think the rules makes it rather clear...there's no room for skeptics in this forum...
"A forum for the discussion of religion and spirituality from a theological, faith-based foundation."

Skepticism is the only reason discussions of religion and spirituality happen.
 
Skepticism is the only reason discussions of religion and spirituality happen.
Uh no...there are disagreements among believers...don't play dumb here...
 
A discussion of religion and spirituality from a theological, faith-based foundation without skepticism.
A says, "The Bible is the word of God"
B says, "Yup"

C says, "the Bible is a book of myths
B says, "Yup"
 
The angel only said that the child would be great.

My point is that her question proves that she intended to remain a virgin, and that she was a virgin her entire life.
Didn't Jesus have brothers?
 
Didn't Jesus have brothers?

Not that I am aware of .
But two sons and one daughter , if you dig deep in Gospels discarded by the Council of Nicea ( did not fit the narrative ) plus Qumran scroll fragments .
 
Not that I am aware of .
But two sons and one daughter , if you dig deep in Gospels discarded by the Council of Nicea ( did not fit the narrative ) plus Qumran scroll fragments .
Matthew 12:46-50 "Jesus’ Mother and Brothers 46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”'
 
Back
Top Bottom