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 ... 926 ananda 23-Feb-04 02:51
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 332 Milo 23-Feb-04 04:18
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 294 ananda 23-Feb-04 04:47
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 260 Milo 23-Feb-04 05:12
Mod Comment to you two 261 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 14:42
Re: Mod Comment to you two 268 Milo 23-Feb-04 15:00
Fallen Angels & Co. 282 Nejc 23-Feb-04 15:09
Re: Fallen Angels & Co. 282 Milo 23-Feb-04 15:18
Yes .. ups.. sorry..n/t 275 Nejc 23-Feb-04 15:27
it's me - lol 314 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 16:19
Re: it's me - lol 309 Milo 23-Feb-04 16:21
No probs n/t 305 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 16:30
Re: Divine Beings 298 Nebankh 23-Feb-04 16:47
Re: Divine Beings 292 Milo 23-Feb-04 17:17
Divine Agreement to Differ 301 Thirdwave 23-Feb-04 17:58
Re: Divine Agreement to Differ 311 Milo 23-Feb-04 18:22
Believers and Researchers 330 Nejc 23-Feb-04 18:48
I am not a blind believer but a researcher 313 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:01
Re: I am not a blind believer but a researcher 310 Nejc 23-Feb-04 19:15
Re: I am not a blind believer but a researcher 299 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:19
Oh. Thanks for this one :) n/t 302 Nejc 23-Feb-04 19:22
Re: I am not a blind believer but a researcher 256 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:21
On the other hand... 325 Nejc 23-Feb-04 20:21
Re: On the other hand... 298 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:39
Re: Divine Beings 334 drowningcreek 23-Feb-04 19:00
Re: Divine Beings 272 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:09
Re: Divine Beings 326 drowningcreek 23-Feb-04 19:24
Re: Divine Beings 282 David L 23-Feb-04 22:42
Is there another site for serious discussion? 314 drowningcreek 23-Feb-04 23:09
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 305 Paul Mallon 24-Feb-04 18:42
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 289 Milo 24-Feb-04 19:42
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 273 David L 25-Feb-04 01:48
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 267 Milo 25-Feb-04 02:14
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 284 David L 25-Feb-04 03:03
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 262 Milo 25-Feb-04 06:37
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 275 David L 25-Feb-04 16:30
No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 276 Milo 25-Feb-04 17:18
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 279 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 17:47
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 286 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 17:54
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 278 Milo 25-Feb-04 17:58
Re: Cana 284 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 18:30
Re: Cana - missed off a bit! 274 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 18:32
Re: Cana - missed off a bit! 277 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:05
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 248 Milo 25-Feb-04 17:57
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 300 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 08:36
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 313 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 10:19
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 273 ananda 26-Feb-04 16:01
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 300 Milo 26-Feb-04 16:14
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 304 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 16:23
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 318 Milo 26-Feb-04 16:27
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 297 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 16:58
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 262 Milo 26-Feb-04 17:01
Augustinian vs. Gnostic (and even Pelagian) 288 ananda 26-Feb-04 17:30
Re: Augustinian vs. Gnostic (and even Pelagian) 288 Milo 26-Feb-04 17:43
In Addition.... 264 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 18:50
Point was missed 254 ananda 26-Feb-04 18:58
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 277 ArmchairObserver 25-Feb-04 18:45
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 257 Zosimos 25-Feb-04 18:53
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 273 ArmchairObserver 25-Feb-04 19:02
I misread the quoted passage... 263 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:28
Re: I misread the quoted passage... 312 David L 25-Feb-04 23:20
Re: I misread the quoted passage... 266 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:31
One more thing... 294 David L 25-Feb-04 23:25
Re: One more thing... 291 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:32
Also... 288 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:41
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 289 David L 25-Feb-04 23:08
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 283 Thirdwave 25-Feb-04 23:33
Re: No Evidence for Jesus' Marriage 302 Milo 25-Feb-04 23:36
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 279 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:01
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 278 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:37
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 297 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:53
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 271 Milo 25-Feb-04 19:58
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 297 sunbeam 23-Feb-04 15:50
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 302 ananda 23-Feb-04 16:15
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 309 Milo 23-Feb-04 16:28
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 313 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:25
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 298 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:36
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 312 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:42
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 306 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:49
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 282 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:22
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 255 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:26
Osirus - Seprapis - Christianity 307 Jaimi 23-Feb-04 21:04
Re: Osirus - Seprapis - Christianity 320 Milo 23-Feb-04 21:27
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 307 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:23
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 307 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:32
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 307 Paul Mallon 24-Feb-04 19:43
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 299 Milo 24-Feb-04 20:19
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 300 Milo 23-Feb-04 16:35
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 271 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:35
And by the way... 304 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:36
Re: And by the way... 315 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:42
Re: And by the way... 266 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:14
Re: And by the way... 272 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 08:28
Re: And by the way... 287 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 16:48
Sources? 289 ananda 26-Feb-04 17:24
Re: Sources? 269 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 18:29
Re: And by the way... 381 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 17:00
Re: And by the way... 285 Kboldt 26-Feb-04 17:45
Re: And by the way... 384 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 18:20
Re: And by the way... 270 ananda 26-Feb-04 18:49
Re: And by the way... 367 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 19:15
Re: And by the way... 260 ananda 26-Feb-04 21:11
Re: And by the way... 361 Zosimos 26-Feb-04 23:30
Re: And by the way... 356 Zosimos 27-Feb-04 00:14
Re: And by the way... 274 Kboldt 27-Feb-04 13:35
Re: And by the way... 337 Zosimos 27-Feb-04 16:44
Re: And by the way... 476 Kboldt 27-Feb-04 16:46
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 293 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:40
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 287 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:47
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 330 Milo 23-Feb-04 19:57
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 317 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:19
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 351 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:23
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 313 ananda 23-Feb-04 20:24
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 311 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:34
Challenge to Milo 309 ananda 23-Feb-04 21:21
Re: Challenge to Milo 328 Milo 23-Feb-04 21:38
Re: Challenge to Milo 363 ananda 23-Feb-04 21:43
Re: Challenge to Milo 300 Milo 23-Feb-04 23:31
Yes you are n/t 306 Nejc 23-Feb-04 21:56
Re: Yes you are n/t 281 Milo 23-Feb-04 23:25
Then again... 281 Nejc 24-Feb-04 08:31
Big Blue :) 298 Thirdwave 24-Feb-04 10:54
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 280 debraregypt 23-Feb-04 15:53
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 293 ananda 23-Feb-04 16:16
Archetypes of the collective unconscious 330 ananda 23-Feb-04 19:55
Re: Archetypes of the collective unconscious 317 Milo 23-Feb-04 20:04
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 314 David L 23-Feb-04 22:28
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 297 Milo 23-Feb-04 23:33
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 304 David L 24-Feb-04 01:35
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 297 Milo 24-Feb-04 01:47
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 273 Lee McGiffen 25-Feb-04 09:51
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 260 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:22
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 325 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 08:24
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 303 Milo 26-Feb-04 15:55
Lee... What about Moses? 294 ananda 26-Feb-04 16:12
Evidence that Jesus Existed 266 Milo 26-Feb-04 16:16
Re: Lee... What about Moses? 284 David L 26-Feb-04 20:37
Deblinkering debunkers... 281 Morph 24-Feb-04 15:26
Re: Deblinkering debunkers... 287 Zosimos 24-Feb-04 18:50
Re: Deblinkering debunkers... 244 Morph 25-Feb-04 15:33
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 295 Lee McGiffen 25-Feb-04 09:58
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 282 ananda 25-Feb-04 13:10
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 278 Milo 25-Feb-04 16:33
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 272 Kboldt 25-Feb-04 19:27
Re: Christ:Mithra ... Mary:Isis ... 252 Zosimos 25-Feb-04 21:16
Re: Christ and Dionysis - good article 282 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 17:58
6th of January not mentioned in the Bible 271 Milo 25-Feb-04 18:05
Re: 6th of January not mentioned in the Bible 269 Nebankh 25-Feb-04 18:14
Re: 6th of January not mentioned in the Bible 271 Milo 25-Feb-04 18:34
Hmmm... 310 Morph 26-Feb-04 15:16
Re: Hmmm... 294 Morph 26-Feb-04 15:20
Re: Hmmm... 279 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 16:44
Au Contraire... 278 Morph 27-Feb-04 14:36


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.