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 ... 977 ananda 23-Feb-04 02:51
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 349 Milo 23-Feb-04 04:18
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 312 ananda 23-Feb-04 04:47
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 279 Milo 23-Feb-04 05:12
Mod Comment to you two 280 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 14:42
Re: Mod Comment to you two 286 Milo 23-Feb-04 15:00
Fallen Angels & Co. 300 Nejc 23-Feb-04 15:09
Re: Fallen Angels & Co. 300 Milo 23-Feb-04 15:18
Yes .. ups.. sorry..n/t 294 Nejc 23-Feb-04 15:27
it's me - lol 333 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 16:19
Re: it's me - lol 329 Milo 23-Feb-04 16:21
No probs n/t 323 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 16:30
Re: Divine Beings 318 Nebankh 23-Feb-04 16:47
Re: Divine Beings 316 Milo 23-Feb-04 17:17
Divine Agreement to Differ 323 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 17:58
Re: Divine Agreement to Differ 334 Milo 23-Feb-04 18:22
Believers and Researchers 348 Nejc 23-Feb-04 18:48
I am not a blind believer but a researcher 333 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:01
Re: I am not a blind believer but a researcher 328 Nejc 23-Feb-04 19:15
Re: I am not a blind believer but a researcher 317 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:19
Oh. Thanks for this one :) n/t 320 Nejc 23-Feb-04 19:22
Re: I am not a blind believer but a researcher 281 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:21
On the other hand... 342 Nejc 23-Feb-04 20:21
Re: On the other hand... 316 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:39
Re: Divine Beings 348 drowningcreek 23-Feb-04 19:00
Re: Divine Beings 289 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:09
Re: Divine Beings 342 drowningcreek 23-Feb-04 19:24
Re: Divine Beings 301 David L 23-Feb-04 22:42
Is there another site for serious discussion? 328 drowningcreek 23-Feb-04 23:09
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 323 Paul Mallon 24-Feb-04 18:42
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 307 Milo 24-Feb-04 19:42
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 290 David L 25-Feb-04 01:48
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 284 Milo 25-Feb-04 02:14
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 301 David L 25-Feb-04 03:03
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 288 Milo 25-Feb-04 06:37
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 296 David L 25-Feb-04 16:30
No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 291 Milo 25-Feb-04 17:18
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 296 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 17:47
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 304 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 17:54
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 296 Milo 25-Feb-04 17:58
Re: Cana 302 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 18:30
Re: Cana - missed off a bit! 299 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 18:32
Re: Cana - missed off a bit! 302 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:05
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 271 Milo 25-Feb-04 17:57
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 317 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 08:36
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 340 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 10:19
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 295 ananda 26-Feb-04 16:01
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 318 Milo 26-Feb-04 16:14
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 327 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 16:23
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 335 Milo 26-Feb-04 16:27
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 316 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 16:58
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 280 Milo 26-Feb-04 17:01
Augustinian vs. Gnostic (and even Pelagian) 306 ananda 26-Feb-04 17:30
Re: Augustinian vs. Gnostic (and even Pelagian) 308 Milo 26-Feb-04 17:43
In Addition.... 282 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 18:50
Point was missed 273 ananda 26-Feb-04 18:58
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 296 ArmchairObserver 25-Feb-04 18:45
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 270 Zosimos 25-Feb-04 18:53
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 298 ArmchairObserver 25-Feb-04 19:02
I misread the quoted passage... 281 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:28
Re: I misread the quoted passage... 334 David L 25-Feb-04 23:20
Re: I misread the quoted passage... 285 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:31
One more thing... 313 David L 25-Feb-04 23:25
Re: One more thing... 309 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:32
Also... 306 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:41
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 307 David L 25-Feb-04 23:08
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 300 Thirdwave 25-Feb-04 23:33
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 319 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:36
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 298 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:01
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 297 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:37
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 324 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:53
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 296 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:58
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 315 sunbeam 23-Feb-04 15:50
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 319 ananda 23-Feb-04 16:15
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 326 Milo 23-Feb-04 16:28
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 332 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:25
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 319 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:36
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 331 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:42
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 327 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:49
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 302 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:22
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 273 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:26
Osirus - Seprapis - Christianity 326 Jaimi 23-Feb-04 21:04
Re: Osirus - Seprapis - Christianity 341 Milo 23-Feb-04 21:27
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 327 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:23
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 324 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:32
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 330 Paul Mallon 24-Feb-04 19:43
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 324 Milo 24-Feb-04 20:19
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 317 Milo 23-Feb-04 16:35
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 290 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:35
And by the way... 323 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:36
Re: And by the way... 332 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:42
Re: And by the way... 285 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:14
Re: And by the way... 290 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 08:28
Re: And by the way... 305 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 16:48
Sources? 307 ananda 26-Feb-04 17:24
Re: Sources? 285 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 18:29
Re: And by the way... 407 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 17:00
Re: And by the way... 304 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 17:45
Re: And by the way... 409 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 18:20
Re: And by the way... 291 ananda 26-Feb-04 18:49
Re: And by the way... 388 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 19:15
Re: And by the way... 278 ananda 26-Feb-04 21:11
Re: And by the way... 381 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 23:30
Re: And by the way... 376 Zosimos 27-Feb-04 00:14
Re: And by the way... 298 Kboldt 27-Feb-04 13:35
Re: And by the way... 361 Zosimos 27-Feb-04 16:44
Re: And by the way... 508 Kboldt 27-Feb-04 16:46
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 310 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:40
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 304 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:47
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 348 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:57
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 343 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:19
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 376 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:23
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 335 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:24
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 329 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:34
Challenge to Milo 328 ananda 23-Feb-04 21:21
Re: Challenge to Milo 349 Milo 23-Feb-04 21:38
Re: Challenge to Milo 382 ananda 23-Feb-04 21:43
Re: Challenge to Milo 319 Milo 23-Feb-04 23:31
Yes you are n/t 325 Nejc 23-Feb-04 21:56
Re: Yes you are n/t 298 Milo 23-Feb-04 23:25
Then again... 299 Nejc 24-Feb-04 08:31
Big Blue :) 317 Thirdwave 24-Feb-04 10:54
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 298 debraregypt 23-Feb-04 15:53
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 312 ananda 23-Feb-04 16:16
Archetypes of the collective unconscious 348 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:55
Re: Archetypes of the collective unconscious 339 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:04
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 332 David L 23-Feb-04 22:28
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 316 Milo 23-Feb-04 23:33
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 321 David L 24-Feb-04 01:35
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 316 Milo 24-Feb-04 01:47
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 291 Lee McGiffen 25-Feb-04 09:51
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 279 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:22
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 344 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 08:24
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 322 Milo 26-Feb-04 15:55
Lee... What about Moses? 319 ananda 26-Feb-04 16:12
Evidence that Jesus Existed 285 Milo 26-Feb-04 16:16
Re: Lee... What about Moses? 299 David L 26-Feb-04 20:37
Deblinkering debunkers... 294 Morph 24-Feb-04 15:26
Re: Deblinkering debunkers... 305 Zosimos 24-Feb-04 18:50
Re: Deblinkering debunkers... 258 Morph 25-Feb-04 15:33
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 310 Lee McGiffen 25-Feb-04 09:58
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 297 ananda 25-Feb-04 13:10
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 292 Milo 25-Feb-04 16:33
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 286 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:27
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 266 Zosimos 25-Feb-04 21:16
Re: Christ and Dionysis - good article 298 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 17:58
6th of January not mentioned in the Bible 293 Milo 25-Feb-04 18:05
Re: 6th of January not mentioned in the Bible 285 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 18:14
Re: 6th of January not mentioned in the Bible 288 Milo 25-Feb-04 18:34
Hmmm... 328 Morph 26-Feb-04 15:16
Re: Hmmm... 306 Morph 26-Feb-04 15:20
Re: Hmmm... 295 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 16:44
Au Contraire... 292 Morph 27-Feb-04 14:36


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.