Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!nlt
From: nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Virgin Birth
Message-ID: <5765@duke.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 22:19:52 EST
Article-I.D.: duke.5765
Posted: Fri Apr 19 22:19:52 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Apr-85 04:40:06 EST
Organization: Duke University
Lines: 19

Eliyahu Teitz writes:

>	My question is a simple one. I was told, by someone on the net
> a while back, that Mary and not Jesus was of virgin birth. Did I mis-
> understand the person or are there differing theologies as to who was
> the child of a virgin.

   I don't remember the quote to which you refer, so I don't know what the
speaker intended.  But:  As far as I know, no theology claims a virgin
birth for Mary.  The strongest claim made for Mary's conception in Christian
theology is that it was "immaculate", meaning that she did not inherit
original sin.  (This belief is held in Roman Catholic tradition but not
in most Protestant traditions.)  The virgin birth of Jesus (not Mary)
is claimed by a long-standing tradition common to Catholicism, Protestantism,
and Orthodoxy; it is currently disputed by many Christians.


                                    N. L. Tinkham
                                    duke!nlt (Duke University)