The Nature of Mary: the Virgin Birth

[mazHur]

I have no idea about Jesus having siblings,,,,ask the one who started the thread.

Kai fa ha luka?

[packersfan]

But why did Mary put Jesus in a mental home, aka, cave. I'm still confused on that metaphor. What does a mental home have anything to do with this????

[mazHur]

that was not a mental home , just a cave,,,,and nobody put him there,,,he went there to hide and meditate ,,,or perhaps have a discourse with God about granting him more powers (miracles) to convince his folk

[papayahed]

that was not a mental home , just a cave,,,,and nobody put him there,,,he went there to hide and meditate ,,,or perhaps have a discourse with God about granting him more powers (miracles) to convince his folk

That's understandable but the first poster said that Mary tried to put Jesus in a mental institution, that is what everybody is questioning.

[mazHur]

that was not a mental home , just a cave,,,,and nobody put him there,,,he went there to hide and meditate ,,,or perhaps have a discourse with God about granting him more powers (miracles) to convince his folk

Ask him,
You don't have to agree with whatever he says.

[dzebra]

packersfan, you asked where the idea came from the Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Matthew 13:54-56 says:
Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

There's another reference in the gospels too, Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31.

[Pendragon]

packersfan, you asked where the idea came from the Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Matthew 13:54-56 says:
Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

There's another reference in the gospels too, Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31.

Thank you, Dzebra. I quoted Matthew 12 here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...45&postcount=4 and referenced it to Luke 8. Granny Sandy, I would agree that one could give a Virgin Birth if somehow sperm were introduced other than by intercourse. To the people of Bible days, broken hymen meant the woman wasn't a virgin. We now know that this can and does happen by other methods than sexual ones, but to them there was one reason, the girl had committed sexual sin. The Bible specifically states that Joseph Mary's husband had no relations with her until AFTER Jesus was born.
Matthew 1:
[25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Thus comes in the children of Mary and Joseph, considered the brothers of Jesus.

[mazHur]

A broken hymen is still considered a symbol of disgrace in many cultures including the Subcontinent of India-Pakistan. It's amazing that Joseph didn't already know that Mary's hymen couldn't be intact after she had given birth to Jesus. It is also strange that a woman who is held by ppl as Mother of God or Mother God and a part of the trinity could have her chastity fouled by a man!

my belief is that Mary was a Virgin and gave birth to Jesus. Rest is just story

[Whifflingpin]

"It is also strange that a woman who is held by ppl as Mother of God or Mother God and a part of the trinity could have her chastity fouled by a man!"

First, Mary is not part of the Trinity.
Second, within Jewish and Christian thought, for a woman to bear and nurture children is not foulness but fulfilment.

There is no reason to suppose that Joseph didn't know "that Mary's hymen couldn't be intact after she had given birth to Jesus." Wherever Joseph is portrayed In the Gospel accounts, it is as a considerate and loving husband, and it is entirely right that he and Mary should have had other children together and brought up their family, like any other good couple.

[mazHur]

I take your point on Mary not being a part of the trinity.

Regarding God's wife marrying or remarrying a human doesn't sound a universally acceptable phenomena and is thus questionable.

for a woman to bear and nurture children is not foulness but fulfilment.This is a universally acceptable rule not only among Jews, Christians but also among all religions of the world. The point is, do religions (of Jews and Christians) allow bearing and nurturing children without marriage? The Bible doesnt support this idea nor any other religion,,,,

How could Mary have married a Man without first obtaining divorce from her husband, God?? And why would have God divorced her in the first place??

[Whifflingpin]

"How could Mary have married a Man without first obtaining divorce from her husband, God?? And why would have God divorced her in the first place??"

I do not mean to be rude, but I think that those questions are meaningless. Marriage is a state that relates humans together, while living on Earth. It does not even relate humans together beyond life on Earth, Matt 22 v30, and it certainly does not describe a relationship between any human and God. So God and Mary are in no sense husband and wife.

If one accepts the Gospel version, (and there is no other source, so the choice is to accept the miraculous part of the story as a whole or not at all,) then Joseph was encouraged by God's messenger to take Mary as his wife - Matt. 1 v20 "the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying, "... fear not to take Mary to be your wife." In taking Mary fully as wife, including parenting other children, providing a full family of parents and brothers and sisters for Jesus to grow up in, Joseph was obeying God's will. He was acknowledging the essential goodness of his wife, and the rightness of her pregnancy prior to his marriage with her.

[mazHur]

the story is incredible and hard to digest.
It has also been given by it's editors or compilers a fine twist in the sequel!

[Pendragon]

the story is incredible and hard to digest.
It has also been given by it's editors or compilers a fine twist in the sequel!

Let me see if I read you correctly: A Virgin Birth is not hard to digest, but that she had other children afterwards is. I would submit that logic dictates that the first one would be the one that would be very difficult to swallow. My faith gets me past that. The rest is easy. Wiff simply quoted the scriptures as did I.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary was not even a doctrine among the Catholic Church until Pope Pius IX pronounced it as doctrine on December 8, 1854. 150 years or so. Short time for a doctrine that people stumble over like a lead weight. Do you not think it would have been so glorious that it would have been mentioned in the Bible?

God Bless

Pen

[Granny5]

I guess it's just me, but whether Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin or not, I don't believe it matters in his teachings or his divinity. I think we could nit pick the whole story apart but it is a matter of faith, not fact.

[Virgil]

I'm with Granny, it doesn't matter either way for me. In fact it is somewhat more miraculous for me if Jesus was concieved the normal way. It says to me that the spark of spirituality is within each little aspect of all our lives and it is there, present before us all, in every thing we do. [Side note, that's a recurring theme that I put to use in many of my poems.]

There is an interesting discussion of both sides of this issue on Wkiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Birth. I know Wiki has its flaws, but I find it to be at least 95% accurate if not more so.