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 ... 627 ananda 23-Feb-04 02:51
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 226 Milo 23-Feb-04 04:18
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 191 ananda 23-Feb-04 04:47
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 158 Milo 23-Feb-04 05:12
Mod Comment to you two 156 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 14:42
Re: Mod Comment to you two 161 Milo 23-Feb-04 15:00
Fallen Angels & Co. 171 Nejc 23-Feb-04 15:09
Re: Fallen Angels & Co. 186 Milo 23-Feb-04 15:18
Yes .. ups.. sorry..n/t 176 Nejc 23-Feb-04 15:27
it's me - lol 208 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 16:19
Re: it's me - lol 201 Milo 23-Feb-04 16:21
No probs n/t 206 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 16:30
Re: Divine Beings 195 Nebankh 23-Feb-04 16:47
Re: Divine Beings 188 Milo 23-Feb-04 17:17
Divine Agreement to Differ 197 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 17:58
Re: Divine Agreement to Differ 213 Milo 23-Feb-04 18:22
Believers and Researchers 224 Nejc 23-Feb-04 18:48
I am not a blind believer but a researcher 204 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:01
Re: I am not a blind believer but a researcher 214 Nejc 23-Feb-04 19:15
Re: I am not a blind believer but a researcher 190 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:19
Oh. Thanks for this one :) n/t 204 Nejc 23-Feb-04 19:22
Re: I am not a blind believer but a researcher 159 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:21
On the other hand... 224 Nejc 23-Feb-04 20:21
Re: On the other hand... 193 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:39
Re: Divine Beings 238 drowningcreek 23-Feb-04 19:00
Re: Divine Beings 168 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:09
Re: Divine Beings 236 drowningcreek 23-Feb-04 19:24
Re: Divine Beings 174 David L 23-Feb-04 22:42
Is there another site for serious discussion? 222 drowningcreek 23-Feb-04 23:09
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 194 Paul Mallon 24-Feb-04 18:42
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 184 Milo 24-Feb-04 19:42
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 169 David L 25-Feb-04 01:48
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 166 Milo 25-Feb-04 02:14
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 171 David L 25-Feb-04 03:03
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 166 Milo 25-Feb-04 06:37
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 174 David L 25-Feb-04 16:30
No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 188 Milo 25-Feb-04 17:18
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 173 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 17:47
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 182 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 17:54
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 178 Milo 25-Feb-04 17:58
Re: Cana 184 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 18:30
Re: Cana - missed off a bit! 170 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 18:32
Re: Cana - missed off a bit! 171 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:05
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 145 Milo 25-Feb-04 17:57
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 199 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 08:36
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 207 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 10:19
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 162 ananda 26-Feb-04 16:01
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 200 Milo 26-Feb-04 16:14
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 200 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 16:23
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 212 Milo 26-Feb-04 16:27
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 191 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 16:58
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 153 Milo 26-Feb-04 17:01
Augustinian vs. Gnostic (and even Pelagian) 186 ananda 26-Feb-04 17:30
Re: Augustinian vs. Gnostic (and even Pelagian) 174 Milo 26-Feb-04 17:43
In Addition.... 163 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 18:50
Point was missed 151 ananda 26-Feb-04 18:58
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 178 ArmchairObserver 25-Feb-04 18:45
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 169 Zosimos 25-Feb-04 18:53
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 174 ArmchairObserver 25-Feb-04 19:02
I misread the quoted passage... 158 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:28
Re: I misread the quoted passage... 204 David L 25-Feb-04 23:20
Re: I misread the quoted passage... 170 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:31
One more thing... 186 David L 25-Feb-04 23:25
Re: One more thing... 188 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:32
Also... 189 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:41
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 186 David L 25-Feb-04 23:08
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 185 Thirdwave 25-Feb-04 23:33
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 196 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:36
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 175 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:01
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 172 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:37
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 196 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:53
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 169 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:58
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 199 sunbeam 23-Feb-04 15:50
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 197 ananda 23-Feb-04 16:15
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 205 Milo 23-Feb-04 16:28
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 201 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:25
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 188 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:36
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 202 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:42
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 205 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:49
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 175 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:22
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 147 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:26
Osirus - Seprapis - Christianity 200 Jaimi 23-Feb-04 21:04
Re: Osirus - Seprapis - Christianity 218 Milo 23-Feb-04 21:27
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 208 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:23
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 201 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:32
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 204 Paul Mallon 24-Feb-04 19:43
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 195 Milo 24-Feb-04 20:19
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 197 Milo 23-Feb-04 16:35
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 164 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:35
And by the way... 196 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:36
Re: And by the way... 212 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:42
Re: And by the way... 164 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:14
Re: And by the way... 170 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 08:28
Re: And by the way... 189 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 16:48
Sources? 184 ananda 26-Feb-04 17:24
Re: Sources? 174 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 18:29
Re: And by the way... 259 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 17:00
Re: And by the way... 183 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 17:45
Re: And by the way... 265 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 18:20
Re: And by the way... 173 ananda 26-Feb-04 18:49
Re: And by the way... 242 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 19:15
Re: And by the way... 160 ananda 26-Feb-04 21:11
Re: And by the way... 238 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 23:30
Re: And by the way... 230 Zosimos 27-Feb-04 00:14
Re: And by the way... 173 Kboldt 27-Feb-04 13:35
Re: And by the way... 221 Zosimos 27-Feb-04 16:44
Re: And by the way... 302 Kboldt 27-Feb-04 16:46
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 191 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:40
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 183 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:47
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 218 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:57
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 214 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:19
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 249 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:23
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 202 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:24
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 201 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:34
Challenge to Milo 198 ananda 23-Feb-04 21:21
Re: Challenge to Milo 225 Milo 23-Feb-04 21:38
Re: Challenge to Milo 262 ananda 23-Feb-04 21:43
Re: Challenge to Milo 197 Milo 23-Feb-04 23:31
Yes you are n/t 207 Nejc 23-Feb-04 21:56
Re: Yes you are n/t 178 Milo 23-Feb-04 23:25
Then again... 181 Nejc 24-Feb-04 08:31
Big Blue :) 200 Thirdwave 24-Feb-04 10:54
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 172 debraregypt 23-Feb-04 15:53
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 193 ananda 23-Feb-04 16:16
Archetypes of the collective unconscious 231 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:55
Re: Archetypes of the collective unconscious 218 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:04
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 209 David L 23-Feb-04 22:28
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 193 Milo 23-Feb-04 23:33
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 201 David L 24-Feb-04 01:35
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 197 Milo 24-Feb-04 01:47
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 174 Lee McGiffen 25-Feb-04 09:51
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 157 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:22
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 219 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 08:24
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 204 Milo 26-Feb-04 15:55
Lee... What about Moses? 203 ananda 26-Feb-04 16:12
Evidence that Jesus Existed 171 Milo 26-Feb-04 16:16
Re: Lee... What about Moses? 190 David L 26-Feb-04 20:37
Deblinkering debunkers... 198 Morph 24-Feb-04 15:26
Re: Deblinkering debunkers... 202 Zosimos 24-Feb-04 18:50
Re: Deblinkering debunkers... 165 Morph 25-Feb-04 15:33
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 191 Lee McGiffen 25-Feb-04 09:58
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 186 ananda 25-Feb-04 13:10
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 188 Milo 25-Feb-04 16:33
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 172 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:27
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 172 Zosimos 25-Feb-04 21:16
Re: Christ and Dionysis - good article 179 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 17:58
6th of January not mentioned in the Bible 177 Milo 25-Feb-04 18:05
Re: 6th of January not mentioned in the Bible 174 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 18:14
Re: 6th of January not mentioned in the Bible 177 Milo 25-Feb-04 18:34
Hmmm... 218 Morph 26-Feb-04 15:16
Re: Hmmm... 202 Morph 26-Feb-04 15:20
Re: Hmmm... 188 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 16:44
Au Contraire... 188 Morph 27-Feb-04 14:36


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.