What are your views on the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ?

I believe it as it is recorded in scripture. If Mary were not a virgin Christ could not have been the son of God, and he would have had no power over death. I believe that because of the resurrection of Christ I will be able to live again after I die just like Christ who walked and talked with his disciples and ate bread and honey with them. This gives me peace and something to look forward to.

Are you a Christian? In Luke 1 it tells what happened. The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her she would have a son who would be the Son of God, etc. and she asked how that could be since she didn't know a man. Gabriel told her the "Holy Spirit will overshadow you" and that's what happened. There were many proofs that this is what really happened. The prophecy about it is in Isaiah 7:14.

When Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth who also had a miracle birth (she had been barren and thought to be too old to have a child). The same angel had talked to Elizabeth's husband, Zachariah. So when Mary visited Elizabeth something astounding happened. They were both pregnant at the time. When Mary walked in her house, the baby in Elizabeth's womb (John the Baptist), jumped for joy because of Jesus. (See Luke 1:39-44).

The virgin birth wasn't a Messianic prophecy.

Mary was described as 'almah' which translates as 'young woman'.

If Mary was a virgin the word to describe her would have been 'Bethulah'.

It was not.

Mary's purity was only decided by a vote at the Council of Nicea 323-325 AD. Nearly 300 years later.

Jesus was also voted as the Messiah at that meeting.

Further, anyone who wanted to vote against this and that decided Jesus a prophet was asked to assemble a local temple, they were murdered. There were some 100+.

When the Catholic church is questioned regarding this matter, they claim it was the will of God that they were murdered.

Edit: I will add a little more after receiving a message from someone attempting to argue the 'Hebrew' word Almah can mean anything they want it to mean and using Isiah as an argument, i.e. attempting to use the bible as proof the bible is right, LOL. The word Almah in Hebrew means young woman. To attempt to tell the Jewish people their word doesn't mean what it means is like me telling you the English word carpet is really the ceiling, or you trying to argue you have a carpeted ceiling.

Let's have a little look at what the scolars say about Isaiah.

In the 1700s, the break between the first part of Isaiah (Is. 1-39) versus the latter half of the book (Is. 40-66) caught the eye of critical scholars Döderlein (1789) and Eichhorn (1783), who advocated a source-critical reading of the book, seeing chapters 40-66 as later, post-exilic additions, or even totally separate works artificially appended to the earlier composition. The term "Deutero-Isaiah" described the anonymous later writer, to whom some ascribed some redactionary roles as well. Some more recent commentators have further divided 40-66 by adding a third Isaiah, Trito-Isaiah, who wrote 56-66. The provenance of the text in the latter half of the book seemed to support a post-exilic timeframe, with direct references to Cyrus, King of Persia (44:28; 45:1, 13), a lament for the ruined temple, and other details. Also, the tone of the two halves is different; the first seems to warn erring Judah of impending divine judgment through foreign conquest, while the second seems to provide comfort to a broken people.

Other scholars, such as Margalioth (1964) challenged the view of multiple authorship by pointing out the remarkable unity of the book Isaiah in terms of theme, message, and vocabulary. Even certain verbal formulas unique to Isaiah, such as "the mouth of the Lord has spoken," appears in both halves of Isaiah but in no other Hebrew prophetic literature. While clear differences between the two halves of the book were evident, thematically the two halves are remarkably similar, certainly more similar to each other than to any other existing prophetic literature.

Since the late 20th century, trends in critical scholarship have focused on synchronic approaches, which advocate a whole-text reading, rather than the traditional historical-critical diachronic approaches, which tend to be directed at taking the text apart, looking for sources, redactional seams, etc. Inspired by Hebrew Bible literary criticism done by Robert Alter, scholars have since tended to circumscribe authorship and historical-critical questions and look at the final form of the book as a literary whole, a product of the post-exilic era which is characterized by literary and thematic unity.

Why would you ask a Christian question without allowing the only valid proofs of the fact? The only mention of Mary's virgin birth comes from the Bible and you nullify it as a reason for someone to believe it?

God tells us that Jesus was a great Messenger of God and although highly evolved He was still a man like you and I. God's truth which is accessible in the Conversations with God books by Neale Donald Walsch does not clearly say one way or the other..God tells us that Jesus was not perfect and my personal belief is that it was not a virgin birth..Believing either way has nothing to do with the salvation that God assures for everyone, so I am personally not overly concerned with this matter.. God bless

It's crap.

As we all know, asexual reproduction by human beings was physically impossible until artificial insemination was developed in the late 20th Century. There is no evidence or even independent confirmation of the event, only the totally unsupported fanciful claims of the Bible.

Bull ****.

There have been virgin births in mythology long before Jesus', and I don't believe in those.

And if it did actually happen, I think it is rather obvious that it isn't the first time, and is, therefore, nothing special (since it appears in so many other mythologies).

A virgin can't give birth and that's all there is to it. Jesus (if he existed) was not born of a virgin, his father was probably Joseph and his mother was probably too young to be having sex at all.

"If you're a Christian and you've argued this topic, please share with me the take of the other person." ?

So a person that's NOT a Christian. That's not biased.

Well, if there was a God, why couldn't he fertilize an egg like *snap* that?

It was a strange idea, invented by "Saint" Augustine in the 5th Century, for who knows what reason