Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site digi-g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!digi-g!brian
From: brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: Virgin Birth per duke!nlt
Message-ID: <579@digi-g.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-May-85 12:16:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: digi-g.579
Posted: Thu May  2 12:16:44 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 00:27:47 EDT
References: <1005@vax135.UUCP> <5212@fortune.UUCP> <817@bunker.UUCP>
Reply-To: brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian)
Organization: Digigraphic Systems Corp., Mpls, MN
Lines: 21
Summary: 

In article <817@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:

>In the first place, what do you suppose, "before they came together"
>means?  Or the statement that she was "with child by the Holy
>Spirit"?  (Usually, a pregnant woman is with child by a man.)

This still doesn't say Mary was a *virgin*.  She could have lost her
virginity before meeting Joseph.

>	...will give birth to a son, and they will call him
>	Immanuel" -- which means, "God with us."...
>	...And he gave him the name Jesus.
>
>Gary Samuelson

So why didn't they name him Immanuel, like the prophecy said?  Is this
an oversite?

Merlyn Leroy
"...a dimension between shallow and substance, between science and
superficial, a place we call...The Usenet Zone"