Inner Space :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For discussions on all matters relating to personal development, religion, philosophy, psychology and so on. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
David,

> I have a problem with it because it makes no sense, it's an
> invalidation of sex and has no support in Jesus teachings.
> It's a myth the Church stuck into the gospels.

It wasn't a myth stuck into the Gospels, IMO. It may appear to make no sense but there are ways of looking at the virgin birth in a way that it does, which I'll explain below.

> James was
> Jesus' brother--was Mary a virgin for that birth too?
> When we take a physical birth, we agree to
> be physical, not bend the rules.

That can be explained by looking at the virgin birth from a different angle. Again, I'll explain that in a moment.

> Jesus certainly didn't teach abstinence, and in fact
> had a physical relationship with Mary Magdalene.

I haven't come across the evidence that Jesus had a relationship. Can you please cite any historical records that allude to that possibility?

> He was human.

Jesus was a human but it's possible he had a Divine core, instead a of a spiritual core that we humans possibly have.

> The virgin birth is as ridiculous as the doctrine/belief of
> the physical resurrection of Jesus. It flies in the face of
> his teachings that the physical body is a grave, that the
> people stuck in it are the living dead, and that the kingdom
> of heaven is WITHIN.

I could explain it in my own words but this excerpt from an article probably explains the issue of the virgin birth it best... well it's another point of view that makes sense to me:

During the Nicae Counsil a pact was made with the Roman ruler, Constantine, incorporating Mithraism and Christianity and with that corrupting the 'source code'.

One of the things that was decided at this council was that Mary was a Virgin, in the sexual sense - which refers to the birth of Mithra - while in fact, her name translates as 'immaculate young woman' and since having sex was no sin for the Jews, Mary could be immaculate without being sexually a virgin.

The Virgin Birth

We must realise that Mary was prenatally chosen to be the earthly mother of Jesus and already brought with her all the qualities that would help her in fulfilling her role and when the time drew near for her to conceive, she experienced the Annunciation. From that moment onwards her life changed and it was only concentrated in one direction "to be allowed to experience a Divine grace."

Through the Annunciation the Light wanted to bring about this condition of her soul so as to drive back from the very outset all base instincts, and create the soil upon which a pure physical vessel (the child's body) could come into being for the Immaculate spiritual conception. Through this exceptionally strong psychic adjustment Mary's physical conception, in accordance with the Laws of Nature, became an "immaculate one." Every conception arising out of pure love and a heartfelt looking upwards to the Creator, in which the sensual instinct is only an adjunct and not the basis, is an immaculate conception in the physical sense. In reality this occurs so seldom that there was every justification for laying special stress upon it. The relegation of sensual instincts into the background was assured by the fact of the Annunciation, which for this reason was especially mentioned.

This event had the effect that whatever Mary was doing was completely out of pure love of soul because her intuitions were completely pure. Her joys after the Annunciation can be gleaned from the Bible in the Magnificat; Luke 2:46-55. The developing body in her womb therefore was conceived out of pure love of soul. This made her conception physically immaculate. With purity of thought reigning, nothing else could be the result.

If two people of opposite sex come together with the purest love of the heart for each other and with purity of thoughts on both sides then the product of their coming together or rather the process of their coming together is immaculate. Surely it cannot occur to us that the coming together of every woman and man is a sin and as such is dirty. If two people of opposite sex come together with the purest love of the heart for each other surely that cannot be a sin and everyone should consider it and judge whether this is a sin or not, otherwise every motherhood would have to be considered as sinful and every meeting between two people of opposite sex, even if these two have the purest love for each other, would also be a sin.

Mary's immaculate physical conception provided the basis for an immaculate spiritual conception. Before going further however, the concept of incarnation must be explained. Incarnation simply means the entrance of a soul into a body. The soul enters into a body meant for it and takes full possession. For those who believe in the after-life and in the existence of a soul this should not be difficult to understand.

Incarnation occurs roughly in the middle of pregnancy and this corresponds to the first movements of the developing body in the womb.In the case of the human soul, the latter stays in the vicinity of the expectant mother and at the appropriate time it enters into the developing child's body and this process gives the first shocks to the baby's body which makes it move and which the mother can feel. This movement continues from this moment onwards until the child is born.

The Incarnation of Jesus was an Immaculate Spiritual one because it was an incarnation from out of the Light, out of God, not just any incarnation.

In the case of Jesus, it was not a question of the incarnation of one of the many waiting human souls or spirit-sparks who wish or are compelled for the sake of development to live a life on earth. Here it was a process of radiation from God, given out of love to mankind erring in darkness, which was strong enough to prevent the direct connection with Primordial Light ever being broken.

Jesus therefore went through a normal process of birth. There was therefore no need to change any of the Laws. His physical growth was normal, His appearance and everything else was normal. The nature of Jesus therefore should not have been a matter for much debate. His nature did not lie in His physical body which was just a tool He needed but in His essence, His core which He had derived from God. This was what allowed Him to do all He did, though He did not look different from any other man. He had even said that He had not come to overthrow the Laws but to fulfil them which meant that He had come to adjust Himself to the existing Laws in Creation (Matthew 5:17). If the Laws of God stipulated a normal process of birth and development then He was ready to adjust Himself to that.

---

The above excerpt is from a Webpage that no longer exists but itis available still in the Google archive:

[66.102.9.104]

Rob

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 698 ananda 23-Feb-04 02:51
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 243 Milo 23-Feb-04 04:18
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 212 ananda 23-Feb-04 04:47
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 177 Milo 23-Feb-04 05:12
Mod Comment to you two 177 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 14:42
Re: Mod Comment to you two 184 Milo 23-Feb-04 15:00
Fallen Angels & Co. 191 Nejc 23-Feb-04 15:09
Re: Fallen Angels & Co. 200 Milo 23-Feb-04 15:18
Yes .. ups.. sorry..n/t 194 Nejc 23-Feb-04 15:27
it's me - lol 227 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 16:19
Re: it's me - lol 222 Milo 23-Feb-04 16:21
No probs n/t 225 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 16:30
Re: Divine Beings 215 Nebankh 23-Feb-04 16:47
Re: Divine Beings 212 Milo 23-Feb-04 17:17
Divine Agreement to Differ 217 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 17:58
Re: Divine Agreement to Differ 229 Milo 23-Feb-04 18:22
Believers and Researchers 241 Nejc 23-Feb-04 18:48
I am not a blind believer but a researcher 229 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:01
Re: I am not a blind believer but a researcher 229 Nejc 23-Feb-04 19:15
Re: I am not a blind believer but a researcher 214 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:19
Oh. Thanks for this one :) n/t 220 Nejc 23-Feb-04 19:22
Re: I am not a blind believer but a researcher 175 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:21
On the other hand... 244 Nejc 23-Feb-04 20:21
Re: On the other hand... 214 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:39
Re: Divine Beings 254 drowningcreek 23-Feb-04 19:00
Re: Divine Beings 189 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:09
Re: Divine Beings 251 drowningcreek 23-Feb-04 19:24
Re: Divine Beings 199 David L 23-Feb-04 22:42
Is there another site for serious discussion? 239 drowningcreek 23-Feb-04 23:09
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 220 Paul Mallon 24-Feb-04 18:42
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 202 Milo 24-Feb-04 19:42
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 191 David L 25-Feb-04 01:48
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 186 Milo 25-Feb-04 02:14
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 194 David L 25-Feb-04 03:03
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 182 Milo 25-Feb-04 06:37
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 194 David L 25-Feb-04 16:30
No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 206 Milo 25-Feb-04 17:18
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 193 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 17:47
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 204 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 17:54
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 199 Milo 25-Feb-04 17:58
Re: Cana 204 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 18:30
Re: Cana - missed off a bit! 191 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 18:32
Re: Cana - missed off a bit! 194 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:05
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 168 Milo 25-Feb-04 17:57
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 217 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 08:36
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 226 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 10:19
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 188 ananda 26-Feb-04 16:01
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 215 Milo 26-Feb-04 16:14
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 223 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 16:23
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 234 Milo 26-Feb-04 16:27
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 215 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 16:58
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 181 Milo 26-Feb-04 17:01
Augustinian vs. Gnostic (and even Pelagian) 203 ananda 26-Feb-04 17:30
Re: Augustinian vs. Gnostic (and even Pelagian) 202 Milo 26-Feb-04 17:43
In Addition.... 182 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 18:50
Point was missed 170 ananda 26-Feb-04 18:58
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 192 ArmchairObserver 25-Feb-04 18:45
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 184 Zosimos 25-Feb-04 18:53
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 188 ArmchairObserver 25-Feb-04 19:02
I misread the quoted passage... 176 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:28
Re: I misread the quoted passage... 228 David L 25-Feb-04 23:20
Re: I misread the quoted passage... 185 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:31
One more thing... 209 David L 25-Feb-04 23:25
Re: One more thing... 210 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:32
Also... 204 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:41
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 207 David L 25-Feb-04 23:08
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 202 Thirdwave 25-Feb-04 23:33
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 217 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:36
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 197 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:01
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 193 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:37
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 216 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:53
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 193 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:58
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 214 sunbeam 23-Feb-04 15:50
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 218 ananda 23-Feb-04 16:15
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 222 Milo 23-Feb-04 16:28
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 226 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:25
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 213 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:36
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 224 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:42
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 224 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:49
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 198 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:22
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 172 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:26
Osirus - Seprapis - Christianity 225 Jaimi 23-Feb-04 21:04
Re: Osirus - Seprapis - Christianity 235 Milo 23-Feb-04 21:27
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 225 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:23
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 224 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:32
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 225 Paul Mallon 24-Feb-04 19:43
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 217 Milo 24-Feb-04 20:19
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 216 Milo 23-Feb-04 16:35
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 187 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:35
And by the way... 224 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:36
Re: And by the way... 236 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:42
Re: And by the way... 185 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:14
Re: And by the way... 188 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 08:28
Re: And by the way... 206 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 16:48
Sources? 206 ananda 26-Feb-04 17:24
Re: Sources? 198 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 18:29
Re: And by the way... 280 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 17:00
Re: And by the way... 205 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 17:45
Re: And by the way... 284 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 18:20
Re: And by the way... 193 ananda 26-Feb-04 18:49
Re: And by the way... 261 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 19:15
Re: And by the way... 175 ananda 26-Feb-04 21:11
Re: And by the way... 258 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 23:30
Re: And by the way... 251 Zosimos 27-Feb-04 00:14
Re: And by the way... 197 Kboldt 27-Feb-04 13:35
Re: And by the way... 239 Zosimos 27-Feb-04 16:44
Re: And by the way... 339 Kboldt 27-Feb-04 16:46
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 212 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:40
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 203 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:47
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 240 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:57
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 238 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:19
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 271 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:23
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 221 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:24
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 226 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:34
Challenge to Milo 224 ananda 23-Feb-04 21:21
Re: Challenge to Milo 245 Milo 23-Feb-04 21:38
Re: Challenge to Milo 283 ananda 23-Feb-04 21:43
Re: Challenge to Milo 217 Milo 23-Feb-04 23:31
Yes you are n/t 222 Nejc 23-Feb-04 21:56
Re: Yes you are n/t 200 Milo 23-Feb-04 23:25
Then again... 196 Nejc 24-Feb-04 08:31
Big Blue :) 217 Thirdwave 24-Feb-04 10:54
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 199 debraregypt 23-Feb-04 15:53
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 209 ananda 23-Feb-04 16:16
Archetypes of the collective unconscious 247 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:55
Re: Archetypes of the collective unconscious 236 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:04
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 228 David L 23-Feb-04 22:28
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 213 Milo 23-Feb-04 23:33
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 222 David L 24-Feb-04 01:35
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 218 Milo 24-Feb-04 01:47
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 191 Lee McGiffen 25-Feb-04 09:51
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 177 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:22
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 243 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 08:24
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 224 Milo 26-Feb-04 15:55
Lee... What about Moses? 219 ananda 26-Feb-04 16:12
Evidence that Jesus Existed 192 Milo 26-Feb-04 16:16
Re: Lee... What about Moses? 212 David L 26-Feb-04 20:37
Deblinkering debunkers... 217 Morph 24-Feb-04 15:26
Re: Deblinkering debunkers... 220 Zosimos 24-Feb-04 18:50
Re: Deblinkering debunkers... 180 Morph 25-Feb-04 15:33
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 216 Lee McGiffen 25-Feb-04 09:58
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 209 ananda 25-Feb-04 13:10
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 204 Milo 25-Feb-04 16:33
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 193 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:27
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 189 Zosimos 25-Feb-04 21:16
Re: Christ and Dionysis - good article 199 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 17:58
6th of January not mentioned in the Bible 197 Milo 25-Feb-04 18:05
Re: 6th of January not mentioned in the Bible 193 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 18:14
Re: 6th of January not mentioned in the Bible 194 Milo 25-Feb-04 18:34
Hmmm... 235 Morph 26-Feb-04 15:16
Re: Hmmm... 224 Morph 26-Feb-04 15:20
Re: Hmmm... 205 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 16:44
Au Contraire... 203 Morph 27-Feb-04 14:36


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.