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 ... 871 ananda 23-Feb-04 02:51
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 312 Milo 23-Feb-04 04:18
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 274 ananda 23-Feb-04 04:47
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 240 Milo 23-Feb-04 05:12
Mod Comment to you two 243 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 14:42
Re: Mod Comment to you two 249 Milo 23-Feb-04 15:00
Fallen Angels & Co. 261 Nejc 23-Feb-04 15:09
Re: Fallen Angels & Co. 263 Milo 23-Feb-04 15:18
Yes .. ups.. sorry..n/t 257 Nejc 23-Feb-04 15:27
it's me - lol 294 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 16:19
Re: it's me - lol 289 Milo 23-Feb-04 16:21
No probs n/t 285 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 16:30
Re: Divine Beings 279 Nebankh 23-Feb-04 16:47
Re: Divine Beings 274 Milo 23-Feb-04 17:17
Divine Agreement to Differ 283 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 17:58
Re: Divine Agreement to Differ 291 Milo 23-Feb-04 18:22
Believers and Researchers 310 Nejc 23-Feb-04 18:48
I am not a blind believer but a researcher 289 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:01
Re: I am not a blind believer but a researcher 291 Nejc 23-Feb-04 19:15
Re: I am not a blind believer but a researcher 278 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:19
Oh. Thanks for this one :) n/t 282 Nejc 23-Feb-04 19:22
Re: I am not a blind believer but a researcher 237 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:21
On the other hand... 306 Nejc 23-Feb-04 20:21
Re: On the other hand... 279 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:39
Re: Divine Beings 317 drowningcreek 23-Feb-04 19:00
Re: Divine Beings 254 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:09
Re: Divine Beings 311 drowningcreek 23-Feb-04 19:24
Re: Divine Beings 264 David L 23-Feb-04 22:42
Is there another site for serious discussion? 299 drowningcreek 23-Feb-04 23:09
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 285 Paul Mallon 24-Feb-04 18:42
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 269 Milo 24-Feb-04 19:42
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 254 David L 25-Feb-04 01:48
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 248 Milo 25-Feb-04 02:14
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 263 David L 25-Feb-04 03:03
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 244 Milo 25-Feb-04 06:37
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 257 David L 25-Feb-04 16:30
No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 262 Milo 25-Feb-04 17:18
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 259 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 17:47
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 266 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 17:54
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 260 Milo 25-Feb-04 17:58
Re: Cana 265 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 18:30
Re: Cana - missed off a bit! 255 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 18:32
Re: Cana - missed off a bit! 258 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:05
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 229 Milo 25-Feb-04 17:57
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 282 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 08:36
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 293 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 10:19
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 254 ananda 26-Feb-04 16:01
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 281 Milo 26-Feb-04 16:14
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 285 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 16:23
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 297 Milo 26-Feb-04 16:27
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 278 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 16:58
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 242 Milo 26-Feb-04 17:01
Augustinian vs. Gnostic (and even Pelagian) 270 ananda 26-Feb-04 17:30
Re: Augustinian vs. Gnostic (and even Pelagian) 268 Milo 26-Feb-04 17:43
In Addition.... 245 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 18:50
Point was missed 234 ananda 26-Feb-04 18:58
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 256 ArmchairObserver 25-Feb-04 18:45
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 241 Zosimos 25-Feb-04 18:53
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 254 ArmchairObserver 25-Feb-04 19:02
I misread the quoted passage... 243 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:28
Re: I misread the quoted passage... 292 David L 25-Feb-04 23:20
Re: I misread the quoted passage... 247 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:31
One more thing... 275 David L 25-Feb-04 23:25
Re: One more thing... 274 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:32
Also... 269 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:41
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 269 David L 25-Feb-04 23:08
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 263 Thirdwave 25-Feb-04 23:33
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 282 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:36
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 260 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:01
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 257 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:37
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 276 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:53
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 253 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:58
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 279 sunbeam 23-Feb-04 15:50
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 282 ananda 23-Feb-04 16:15
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 289 Milo 23-Feb-04 16:28
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 292 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:25
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 278 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:36
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 294 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:42
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 287 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:49
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 264 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:22
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 236 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:26
Osirus - Seprapis - Christianity 289 Jaimi 23-Feb-04 21:04
Re: Osirus - Seprapis - Christianity 301 Milo 23-Feb-04 21:27
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 288 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:23
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 288 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:32
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 288 Paul Mallon 24-Feb-04 19:43
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 281 Milo 24-Feb-04 20:19
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 282 Milo 23-Feb-04 16:35
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 252 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:35
And by the way... 287 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:36
Re: And by the way... 297 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:42
Re: And by the way... 249 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:14
Re: And by the way... 251 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 08:28
Re: And by the way... 268 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 16:48
Sources? 271 ananda 26-Feb-04 17:24
Re: Sources? 253 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 18:29
Re: And by the way... 360 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 17:00
Re: And by the way... 266 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 17:45
Re: And by the way... 363 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 18:20
Re: And by the way... 252 ananda 26-Feb-04 18:49
Re: And by the way... 345 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 19:15
Re: And by the way... 239 ananda 26-Feb-04 21:11
Re: And by the way... 341 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 23:30
Re: And by the way... 335 Zosimos 27-Feb-04 00:14
Re: And by the way... 255 Kboldt 27-Feb-04 13:35
Re: And by the way... 317 Zosimos 27-Feb-04 16:44
Re: And by the way... 442 Kboldt 27-Feb-04 16:46
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 274 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:40
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 266 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:47
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 310 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:57
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 299 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:19
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 332 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:23
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 292 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:24
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 292 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:34
Challenge to Milo 290 ananda 23-Feb-04 21:21
Re: Challenge to Milo 309 Milo 23-Feb-04 21:38
Re: Challenge to Milo 344 ananda 23-Feb-04 21:43
Re: Challenge to Milo 282 Milo 23-Feb-04 23:31
Yes you are n/t 287 Nejc 23-Feb-04 21:56
Re: Yes you are n/t 263 Milo 23-Feb-04 23:25
Then again... 262 Nejc 24-Feb-04 08:31
Big Blue :) 281 Thirdwave 24-Feb-04 10:54
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 261 debraregypt 23-Feb-04 15:53
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 273 ananda 23-Feb-04 16:16
Archetypes of the collective unconscious 310 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:55
Re: Archetypes of the collective unconscious 297 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:04
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 294 David L 23-Feb-04 22:28
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 276 Milo 23-Feb-04 23:33
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 284 David L 24-Feb-04 01:35
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 279 Milo 24-Feb-04 01:47
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 253 Lee McGiffen 25-Feb-04 09:51
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 241 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:22
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 305 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 08:24
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 286 Milo 26-Feb-04 15:55
Lee... What about Moses? 276 ananda 26-Feb-04 16:12
Evidence that Jesus Existed 248 Milo 26-Feb-04 16:16
Re: Lee... What about Moses? 268 David L 26-Feb-04 20:37
Deblinkering debunkers... 269 Morph 24-Feb-04 15:26
Re: Deblinkering debunkers... 273 Zosimos 24-Feb-04 18:50
Re: Deblinkering debunkers... 230 Morph 25-Feb-04 15:33
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 278 Lee McGiffen 25-Feb-04 09:58
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 265 ananda 25-Feb-04 13:10
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 260 Milo 25-Feb-04 16:33
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 254 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:27
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 240 Zosimos 25-Feb-04 21:16
Re: Christ and Dionysis - good article 263 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 17:58
6th of January not mentioned in the Bible 255 Milo 25-Feb-04 18:05
Re: 6th of January not mentioned in the Bible 253 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 18:14
Re: 6th of January not mentioned in the Bible 255 Milo 25-Feb-04 18:34
Hmmm... 298 Morph 26-Feb-04 15:16
Re: Hmmm... 280 Morph 26-Feb-04 15:20
Re: Hmmm... 262 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 16:44
Au Contraire... 265 Morph 27-Feb-04 14:36


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.