I personally really like most all the teachings of Jesus and try to live by them but I really don't like religion because its so slick and false. Christian promotion began as soon as Jesus died by his own disciples, something Jesus didn't teach them to do (at least not in that way). Many stories were exaggerated or made up in order to compete with the worship of Greek gods. I believe that the story of Jesus being born of a virgin is a good example of this. Please take the time to read all of the following study of this before posting an opinion. thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------

The gospel writer, Matthew, overextended himself trying to show that Jesus fulfilled a multitude of old prophecies. He even tried to make Jesus competitive with the fabled Greek "son-of-god" Heracles, the son of Zeus (the chief god) and the human virgin Alemene. Matthew quoted the prophet Isaiah (chapter 7) who had prophesied that Syria and Israel wouldn't succeed in invading Judah. The sign of their upcoming failure would be a child named Immanuel which means "God with us", as opposed to God being with the attackers. (see 8:10 "it shall not stand: for God is with us.") All this would occur in Isaiah's time*, centuries before the time of Jesus. Isaiah wrote that the boy would be born of a "young woman". That word can also be translated "virgin" because back then, amongst the Jews, most young women were virgins. But Matthew used "virgin" and said that Jesus fulfilled that prophecy, therefore making him a "son of god" in the Greek sense. Anyway, Matthew totally pulled this verse out of context and said it was applicable to Jesus, which it wasn't.

Isaiah 7:
1. Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the ... king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it. 7. Thus says the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass. 8. ...within threescore and five (65) years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. 10. Moreover the LORD spoke again unto Ahaz (king of Judah), saying, 11. Ask for a sign from the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. 12. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. 14. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 16. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that you abhor shall be forsaken of both her kings. (This chapter is about how the two mentioned kings would not prevail against Jerusalem and that Ahaz, the king of Judah, would see it in his time, the proof being that a child will be born and named Immanuel, and that before he reaches the age of reasoning that the kings would leave their own land. This is a prediction concerning his time, not for later centuries (the time of Christ). It was a sign for Ahaz. It is utterly ridiculous to think that God would promise Ahaz a sign but then not show it to him. Signs are to be seen, not just heard of. (v 14 "the Lord himself shall give you a sign"). Why would God promise Ahaz a sign that wouldn't show itself until hundreds of years later? He wouldn't. God promised Ahaz a sign to be seen by him soon. There is no way in the world that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy because it was fulfilled in the time of Ahaz. The sign that Ahaz saw was a young child named Immanuel, knowing that before the boy knew how to choose the good that the kings of Israel and Syria would leave their lands (probably forcibly by an invading force).

Only the gospels of Matthew and Luke asserted that Jesus was born of a virgin (though neither was acquainted with Joseph and Mary at the time of Jesus' birth). But all the writings of Paul never mentioned such an important fact. Also, none of the other New Testament writers asserted that, including Jesus' own brother James. You would think that such an astounding and important story would be in each of their writings. But it wasn't. Actually, the gospels of Matthew and Luke were composed around 90 A.D., whereas Paul and the other apostles writings were made in the first few decades after Jesus' death, around 50 A.D. which would precede the two gospels accounting of the virgin birth. How can it be that Paul and the other apostles didn't know about this amazing part of Jesus' life? If they did, they surely would of wrote about it because that happening alone would of verified that Jesus was the son of God. But instead, they asserted that Jesus was the son of God because in the beginning he had emanated from God as "the beginning of the creation of God" (Rev 3:14). He had pre-existed (Phil 2:6-8) before coming to Earth and had served God the Father as the creator of all that is physical (Col 1:16). He didn't come into existence as the son of the Father when he was born of Mary. He had already been the son of the Father for millions, possibly billions, of years already. This "bible error" allowed the Catholic organization to say that Mary was the Mother of god, and the Queen of heaven. It was the Catholics, at the church council of Nicea (325 A.D.), that came up with the "apostles creed" which was a statement of basic "orthodox" Christian beliefs, one of them being the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin. Whatever the Catholics approve of definitely needs to be reviewed and studied without any presupposed ideas.

The Hebrew Old Testament in Isaiah 7:14 used the word "almah" meaning "young woman" or "virgin" instead of "bethuwlah" which exclusively means "virgin". Matthew used the Greek version which used "parthenos" meaning "virgin". Later Greek translations (after the 1st century) corrected the error and used the word "neanis" meaning "young girl".

Jesus referred to himself as a "Son of Man" (Luke 19:10). How could he do that without an earthly father? He couldn't. He'd have to say he was a "Son of Woman" or "Son of God". Jesus never said he was born of a virgin. Jesus almost exclusively called himself the "Son of Man" (a phrase found 81 times in the gospels) which would necessitate that he had an earthly father. In the Old Testament this phrase was used to humble the person it identified, signifying the person was "just human". It was mostly used by God to address a prophet. So Jesus used this phrase to identify himself as an earthly prophet, born of man.

How could Jesus be the Son of David (Matt 1:1, 2Tim 2:8) if he didn't have an earthly father in the lineage of David? He couldn't, despite the bible apologists saying that Mary was probably in David's lineage which would place Jesus in the same lineage (although not really because lineage is reckoned thru the males). In Romans 9:4-5 it is said that Jesus was of the Israelites as concerning the flesh. Galatians 3:16 says Jesus was the seed (offspring) of Abraham. Lineage comes through the father, in this case Joseph who was descended from David.

Jesus couldn't of been the son of the Holy Spirit as Matthew asserted in 1:18 because in Luke we find Jesus saying "my Father" eight times. He was always referring to God as the Father, not the Holy Spirit.

It's so weird to even think of the "Holy" Spirit becoming naked male flesh to "overshadow" Mary (Lk 1:35) and impregnate her with divine sperm. The absolute absurdity of it all! "Overshadowing" is what men do to women when they have sex in the most common position. Some people say that it wasn't a physical act but an act of divine creation. If that was so then why did Luke use the word "overshadow"? And why couldn't the Holy Spirit just say a creative word from up in heaven? No, Matthew and Luke were talking of a scenario very similar to what happened in Greek myths of gods physically mating with women.

Jesus would of had to be named Immanuel in order to fulfill this prophecy. He wasn't. But that extremely important point isn't important to fundamentalists. They never let the facts get in the way of their beliefs. Jesus' original name in Greek was Iesous and in Hebrew was Yehowshuwa (Joshua or Jehoshua) which means "Jehovah is salvation". Immanuel means "God with us".

2 scripture writers believed Jesus was born of a virgin: Matthew, Luke.
6 scripture writers believed Jesus wasn't born of a virgin (due to their lack of stating such an important fact): Mark, John, Paul, James (brother of Jesus who surely should of known), Peter, Jude.
Bible scholars say that the gospels of Matthew and Luke are a combination of their own writings, most of the gospel of Mark, and a theorized collection of sayings named the "Q sayings" by bible scholars. Could it be that the Q sayings contained this mistranslation/ fiction of Jesus' virgin birth?

Historically there did exist Christian groups that believed Jesus was birthed of a normal father and mother. The Ebionites were one of those early Christian congregations that stuck to the truth.

Liberal bible scholars take the view that the virgin birth of Jesus was pure mythology based on other pagan religions of the time. In Greek mythology Zeus supposedly impregnated the virgin Danae by taking the form of a shower of gold, and the result was Perseus. He did the same with the virgin Semele using a bolt of lightning, and the result was Dionysius. Horus, a major god of the Egyptian religion, was born of the virgin Isis and coincidentally was also supposedly born in a stable. Mithra, the main god in Mithraism, which was a major religion of Rome, was conceived when god in the form of light entered a virgin. Myrrha was a virgin who gave birth to Adonis in Phoenician mythology. As you can see, the concept of a virgin birth was not new and its mythology permeated throughout cultures at the time.

I believe Jesus' "virgin birth" is one of the Christian "fables" that Paul the apostle was warning the Christians to be wary of;
1 Tim 1:4 "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith".

Why is religion "slick" and "false"?

Who told you religion is science?

Just skimming...

Jesus is the Son of God spiritually. Jesus chooses to obey God out of love and has designated himself God's son. Jesus has always existed with God, therefore Jesus could not be the son of God in the literal sense.

I’m in complete agreement with you on this one. Even Jesus himself denounced the Old Testament in many subtle different ways. Clearly he did not support the same things that were taught in the Old Testament. Therefore it makes no sense to even pretend that he was the same God. If he was he would virtually need to be disagreeing with his own previous directives. But that would imply that he had a change of heart which is also a contradiction.




That’s exactly true. Most people today have no clue how fierce the competition was between the Greek religion and Christianity. Most people have no clue how seriously the Greeks took their Gods. For the Greeks Zeus was real, just as real as the God of Abraham is to Christians. It wasn’t mythology to them.

It was only after years of very methodic and often times quite underhanded proselytizing that the Christians were finally able to overcome the Greek religions and proclaim them to be myths.

The Christian actively set up churches in places where the Greeks worshiped their Gods. They would even pretend to embrace the Greek Gods just to attract a congregation. Then they slowly and methodically weaned the people off the Greek beliefs and sold them on the biblical stories and Jesus.

The Christians were very methodic in their proselytizing campaigns whilst no one was really defending the Greek Gods. The Greeks just assumed that their Gods would always been worshiped. They weren’t obsessed with proselytizing. They also didn’t have any threats that if you don’t believe you’ll go to hell. The Greeks didn’t have any beliefs that demanded that you worship any one God over another. Even though they views Zeus at the God of Gods, it was still permissible to worship any of the Greek Gods.

The Christians were focused on Jesus and demanding that if you don’t accept him as your ‘Savior” you will be lost. It was that focus and the demand that only one God is important that helped them to focus people onto just one idea. In some sense it was easier. All you needed to do is accept one very innocent “boy God” as your savior and you’d be cool with his Father.

It was an easier sell.

Is Mary Really God’s Mother?

This Rock
Volume 2, Number 5
October 1991

Irenaeus

"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 180]).

Alexander of Alexandria



"We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Encyclical Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12 [A.D.324]).




Ephraim



"Though still a virgin she carried a Child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 338-373]).




Athanasius



"The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (On the Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).


Cyril of Jerusalem



"The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness (Cat-echetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D.350]).



Gregory of Nazianz



"If anyone does not agree that Holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead. If anyone asserts that Christ passed through the Virgin as through a channel and was not shaped in her both divinely and humanly, divinely because without man and humanly because in accord with the law of gestation, he is likewise godless" (Epistle to Cledonius the Priest 101 [A.D. 382]).



Epiphanius



"For this is the Holy Savior who came down from heaven, who deigned to fashion for our salvation in a virginal workshop . . . who did not change his nature when he took on humanity along with his divinity . . . who took on human flesh and soul. Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).



Theodore of Mopsuestia



"When, therefore, they ask, `Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, `Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation. Mother of man because it was a man who was in the womb of Mary and who came forth from there, and the Mother of God because God was in the man who was born, not in him in a circumscribable way according to nature, but existing in him by intention of will" (On the Incarnation 15 [A.D. 390]).



Jerome



"Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 408-410]).



John Cassian



"Now, you heretic, you say, whoever you are who deny that God was born of the Virgin, that Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be called Theotokos, that is, the Mother of God, but Christotokos, that is, the Mother only of Christ [the man] and not of God. For no one, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. And of this utterly stupid argument, wherein you suppose that the birth of God [at the Incarnation] can be understood by a carnal intellect and believe that the mystery of his majesty can be resolved by human reasoning, we will, if God permits, offer a refutation later on. In the meantime, however, let us prove by divine testimonies both that Christ is God and that Mary is the Mother of God" (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius 2:2 [A.D.429]).




Cyril of Alexandria



"I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the Holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the Holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Epistle to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 423-431]).



Cyril of Alexandria



"In accord with this understanding of the unconfused union [of Christ’s divine and human natures] we confess that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God" (Epistle to John, Bishop of Antioch 39 [A.D. 433]).

Mary: Mother of God


Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.

A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinct persons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the "Nestorian" church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.

Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.

Mary: Ever Virgin


Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the "brethren of the Lord." As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.


The Protoevangelium of James



"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).

"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).

"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).


Origen



"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).


Hilary of Poitiers



"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).


Athanasius



"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).


Epiphanius of Salamis



"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

"And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).


Jerome



"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21).


Didymus the Blind



"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).


Ambrose of Milan



"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).


Pope Siricius I



"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).


Augustine



"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).


Leporius



"We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary" (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).


Cyril of Alexandria



"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).


Pope Leo I



"His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained" (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

My own words, denying that the blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. It is denying Jesus' divine nature and human condition.
Denying this would make the person who think this fall in the heresy of arianism.

Lonely, your multiple quotes by multitudes of brainwashed people means nothing to me. Jesus gave the concept that the majority is always wrong by saying "wide is the way that leads to destruction and many there be therein, but narrow is the way leading to life and few there be that find it".

Truly.

Posting tons of opinions from people who believe in the myth is nothing but a total waste of time. It doesn't show anything other than the fact that a lot of people believe it.

We already know that.

hmmmm?

Your bias and puerile statement which only intent is to deny a principle of faith of many, doesn't mean anything to me either.
You are just another fundie. Even Luther and Calvin tha fathers of protestantism recognized the virgin birth.

You lost time when you answered this, I didn't. If you are as enlighten as you claim to be you wouldn't even have responded.

Could you at least supply us with the source from which you cut and paste this.

By our faith, it is. Amen. Amen.

So are you saying you don’t believe the virgin birth or that it was just exaggerated up to the point that there was not a virgin birth? I would say that both are Yes but, I don't know if I am getting all the history lesson down that you stated I don’t know if you fell in to another trap of exaggeration with all the other teachings of others left behind to come to your own point of expression of being aware of fables. I enjoy proverbs myself and I really don’t care what other Gods have to say about this or that. I am just a believer and take God at his word. As long as I believe I dont have nothing to worry about. John 3:16 MaybeHer (Gee I hope this made sense it does to me)

Mediterreanen Mythology is interesting, but Greek Mythology is fascinating!

Cronus is the God of the Universe and the inventor of the Golden Age! May we worship him forever!

The term Golden age stems from Greek mythology and legend. It refers to the highest age in the Greek spectrum of Iron, Bronze, Silver and Golden ages, or to a time in the beginnings of Humanity which was perceived as an ideal state, or utopia, when mankind was pure and immortal. A "Golden Age" is known as a period of PEACE, HARMONY, STABILITY and PROSPERITY. In literary works, the Golden Age usually ends with a devastating event, which brings about the Fall of Man.

Why or why the fall of man had to ruin it all!

Follow Greek Mythology it is much more interesting!

Is that the only reason? its intresting.

it is fascinating