The Nature of Mary: the Virgin Birth

you sound of mythology.

Why would God need a son--just one son, not to speak of a daughter---to lead the people? If God must have offsprings then he is not god but a figment of imagination, a demi-god, a mythological entity. And, where does common sense tell us that one man has to die for sins of others? Why would any god's son (except in mythology)made to face such a terrible death? Common sense says that one is fully responsible for his own crimes and sins,,,, I hate to shift blame on any one else, be it god or Jesus or Buddha or Muhammad. Astonishingly, people have advanced in science and culture but they still seem to suffer from primitive and irrational thinking,,,,(this is a genereal statement which please note)

Son does not really mean son. "Son" as a member of the Trinity. Son, to use an image from C.S. Lewis, as that which emanates from God (and is God) as heat and light from a fire. The Son may be thought of as God's illustration (in His own being) of the proper response to God: with perfect obedience and adoration. The Son delights in the Father, the Father is well pleased with the Son.
And, yes, we are responsible for our own sins: but Christ's death was His intercession on our behalf. Because we cannot on our own earn our salvation, God interfered with the process. You may know that the Israelites used to offer sacrifices to atone for their sins: Christ is the perfect and everlasting sacrifice.

So, God had to 'sacrifice' his own son for our salvation. It doesn't appeal to my mind, sorry. And, why would God have a son who would be crucified and die and who couldn't even realize why the 13th guy(the traitor) left the table during last supper?
Why would we like to make an scapegoat of god's son for our own sinful doings? And, he be held answerable to god for that?
Jesus was simply a great prophet of God and never died on the cross. He's alive and will return to earth before doomsday to rid us of unbelievers.

You analogy to fire and light is beyond my understanding . Even the flare of the sun is going down with the passage of time. Light also dies off at a certain limit.fire goes off , If our God and his son were like fire and light they have certainly lost their blitz and glare,,,and I don't think they would ever have the chance to recoup ,,,,,,,,,no, no , you are mistaken,,,I cant believe your weak explanation in present scientific times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

So, God had to 'sacrifice' his own son for our salvation. It doesn't appeal to my mind, sorry. And, why would God have a son who would be crucified and die and who couldn't even realize why the 13th guy(the traitor) left the table during last supper?

---

I am sorry, friend mazHur, but I cannot let this statement stand.

St. John 13:
[23] Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
[24] Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
[25] He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
[26] Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
[27] And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
[28] Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.
[29] For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.
[30] He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.

How could Jesus not know? He told the disciple (John) that he would dip bread, and give it to the betrayer. He gave it to Judas, and told him "What you have to do, do quickly." And Judas left at once. The disciples seem a bit dull-witted, for they (including John) don't seem to catch on, but Jesus knew. And Jesus is alive, yes, I will agree, but first He tasted death, but not corruption. In 72 hours an unembalmed body begins to decay. Jesus rose early on the third day.

God Bless

Dale

-Why Mary is different:
-Luke1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
-luke1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
-luke1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

-Jesus didn’t have brothers &sisters and Mary did stay a virgin:
I assume the passage you are referring to is Mathew 12:46-50 , well in the time of Christ using the word brother was to show respect it was a term of endearment since they appreciated family bonds more than any other.
Besides supposing what you say is true why were they not mentioned more frequently in the bible especially in the parts where Jesus was persecuted?
Hope to hear from you!

For your information here Muslim's version of Mary and Jesus:

click: http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/noframes/ch19.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stella

-Why Mary is different:
-Luke1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
-luke1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
-luke1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

-Jesus didn’t have brothers &sisters and Mary did stay a virgin:
I assume the passage you are referring to is Mathew 12:46-50 , well in the time of Christ using the word brother was to show respect it was a term of endearment since they appreciated family bonds more than any other.
Besides supposing what you say is true why were they not mentioned more frequently in the bible especially in the parts where Jesus was persecuted?
Hope to hear from you!

---

And you have waited patiently to hear back from me. I have been ill lately. No, I will quote from Matthew chapter 1.

[18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
[19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
[20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
[21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
[22] Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
[23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
[24] Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
[25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

I am certain you are familiar with the expression used in the 25th verse and its meaning in the Bible. She was taken as wife by Joseph by heavenly commandment, and after Jesus was born, they lived as a normal husband and wife. Such a union would produce children, and they are named, some of them, in the Bible, two brothers James and Jude as well as sisters.

I cannot change what is written in the scriptures: Revelation 22: [18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
[19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

God Bless

Pen

I agree with Pendragon. A normal relationship would produce children. Also at one point in the Bible, Jesus is told his mother and BROTHERS are outside.

pendragon,
Well I hope you are feeling better now …..glad to hear an answer!;)
As to the matter in hand ,Allow me to quote:
“Verse 25: Some modern commentators on Scripture state "the word till does not direct our attention to what happened afterwards; it simply points out what has happened up to that moment." (Navarre Bible Commentary). Examples of this are seen in Matt. 10:11, 12:20, 14:22, 17:9 - "And as they came down the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying: Tell the vision to no man, till the Son of man be risen from the dead."
St. Jerome answers simply that the word 'until' is to be understood in two senses in Scripture. Until often denotes a fixed period, but often also an infinite time, as in the examples below. "Understand then, those things which, if they had not been written might have been doubted, are expressly declared to us; other things are left to our own understanding. So here the evangelist informs us in this area where there might have been room for error, that she was not known by her husband until the birth, that we might infer that much less was she known afterwards."
Gen. 28:15, "And I will be thy keeper where ever you go, and will bring you back into this land: neither will I leave thee, till I shall have accomplished all that I have said."
Isaiah 46:4, God says, "I am till you grow old."
Matthew 22:44, "God said to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool."
Verse 25, cont. - Only begotten son was also called firstborn, because, according to the law, Exodus 13:2, "Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that opens the womb among the children of Israel." The firstborn had other privileges as well: At a certain age his brethren were to honor him by bowing down (Gen. 27:29), he received a "double portion" for an inheritance (Deut. 21:17), he was to take the role as priest in the family, and he was promised special spiritual blessings and privileges (those who blessed him were blessed, those who cursed him were cursed (Gen. 12:1, & 27:29). “
Taken from http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/matt1.htm

Thinkerr I already discussed this in my earlier thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stella

pendragon,
Well I hope you are feeling better now …..glad to hear an answer!;)
As to the matter in hand ,Allow me to quote:
“Verse 25: Some modern commentators on Scripture state "the word till does not direct our attention to what happened afterwards; it simply points out what has happened up to that moment." (Navarre Bible Commentary). Examples of this are seen in Matt. 10:11, 12:20, 14:22, 17:9 - "And as they came down the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying: Tell the vision to no man, till the Son of man be risen from the dead."
St. Jerome answers simply that the word 'until' is to be understood in two senses in Scripture. Until often denotes a fixed period, but often also an infinite time, as in the examples below. "Understand then, those things which, if they had not been written might have been doubted, are expressly declared to us; other things are left to our own understanding. So here the evangelist informs us in this area where there might have been room for error, that she was not known by her husband until the birth, that we might infer that much less was she known afterwards."
Gen. 28:15, "And I will be thy keeper where ever you go, and will bring you back into this land: neither will I leave thee, till I shall have accomplished all that I have said."
Isaiah 46:4, God says, "I am till you grow old."
Matthew 22:44, "God said to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool."
Verse 25, cont. - Only begotten son was also called firstborn, because, according to the law, Exodus 13:2, "Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that opens the womb among the children of Israel." The firstborn had other privileges as well: At a certain age his brethren were to honor him by bowing down (Gen. 27:29), he received a "double portion" for an inheritance (Deut. 21:17), he was to take the role as priest in the family, and he was promised special spiritual blessings and privileges (those who blessed him were blessed, those who cursed him were cursed (Gen. 12:1, & 27:29). “
Taken from http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/matt1.htm

Thinkerr I already discussed this in my earlier thread.

---

The word I was referring to was "knew". In Bible terms this meant in a carnal way.
Joseph did not have relations as husband and wife with Mary until after Christ was born, thus allowing a Virgin birth. Afterwards, they were a normal man and wife, had relations which produced children. The word translated as "knew" does not change when used in this context. Thank you.

God Bless

Pen

Whops. Sorry. I read back and you did, my mistake.

I've fallen out of sync with this thread, but I think the discussion has moved on to Mary's perpetual virginity- correct?

According to Paul, the notion that Mary would be perpetually virginal would in fact be a sin- or at least a very, very bad idea. He specifically mentions that husbands and wives should not "withhold themselves" from each other, for fear of leaving the other open to temptation. Mary would have had a certain obligation to Joseph- and he to her, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

I've fallen out of sync with this thread, but I think the discussion has moved on to Mary's perpetual virginity- correct?

According to Paul, the notion that Mary would be perpetually virginal would in fact be a sin- or at least a very, very bad idea. He specifically mentions that husbands and wives should not "withhold themselves" from each other, for fear of leaving the other open to temptation. Mary would have had a certain obligation to Joseph- and he to her, of course.

---

Perhaps not sin, but a bad idea, I believe Paul was saying:

1 Corinthians 7:[1] Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
[3] Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
[4] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
[5] Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
[6] But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
[7] For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
[8] I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
[9] But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Burn here, means with lustful desires.

I think we are limiting the scope of our discussion to quotes from the Bible. Since Queen Mary and Jesus are not restricted to one religion, I think it would be worthy the subject to substantiate it with evidence, proof or opinions from other available sources as well. Moreso, because the topic of the thread nowhere indicates that we proved it in context with findings of the Bible only.
Let's discuss it with a wider universal approach,,,,,,,,,

i am sorry but i have to disagree; i believe the most important word in this verse is "till"because it denies any relation before & after.
anyways i enjoyed discussing this with you,really, you can be very convincing.. but sorry not this time.
there are very few things i believe in but those i strongly hold on to.
i didn't know what your last "thank you" meant ( to be honest it scared me) ...but I'll say thank you for the discussion .
& this time I'll quote you :
God Bless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stella

i am sorry but i have to disagree; i believe the most important word in this verse is "till"because it denies any relation before & after.
anyways i enjoyed discussing this with you,really, you can be very convincing.. but sorry not this time.
there are very few things i believe in but those i strongly hold on to.
i didn't know what your last "thank you" meant ( to be honest it scared me) ...but I'll say thank you for the discussion .
& this time I'll quote you :
God Bless.

---

I hadn't revisited this tread for a while. Stella, the last thing I would want to do is frighten anyone. If I came across that way, I am sorry. You say the most important word there is "till" because you somehow think that means "neither now nor afterwards." The word in Greek is ov and doesn't change when I when through at least eight different translation. It means "until" which marks a given period of time.

I will leave you with this:
2Pet.1

[10] Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Do not be quickly persuaded by others, but ponder in your own heart to make your calling and election sure. However persuasive, one can be wrong. Try the spirits to see if they be of God. I try not to mislead, I can show you where to look, but You must seek and find.

As ever, God Bless. Any questions can be PMed to me.

Pen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

The idea of the Immaculate Conception of Mary does not have to be biblical to be believed. It is a logical extension of the belief that Mary was the chosen vessel of God Incarnate. It is hard to see how any sinful person could be chosen to give birth to God, and for Mary to be sinless it would be necessary for her either to have been purged of sin at the moment Jesus was conceived or for her to have escaped the sinful nature that mankind in general is born to. (I've never quite worked out why that does not imply a series of immaculate conceptions going back from Mary to Eve, but no doubt Richard Hresko has an explanation.)

---

I have this different thought about how God uses mankind to make His plans work.

Here's what written in Matthew about the genealogy of Jesus Christ

Quote:

---

Matthew 1:5
And Salmon begat Booz of Rahab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

---

And this Rahab, which was the great great great grandmother of Jesus, was believed to be the same woman who helped the spies in the book of Joshua and she was, as the scripture said, a prostitute.

Quote:

---

Joshua 2:1
And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of ****tim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there.

---

Yes, we can say that Rahab is not directly link to Jesus and her 'status', of course, is different with Marry. Yet I think from that story of Rahab, it's cleary shown that God can choose anyone He wants as long as the person is willing. Marry was just a 'tool' and I agree with Granny5's and Virgil's posts that Marry's situation has nothing to do with Christ divinity.


Note: that **** thing should be read as S-h-i-t-t-i-m

Exactly correct. Mary did not need to be perfect. If God only worked through the perfect, how could He work at all?