Virgin Mary

katydid · 12-02-2015 06:58PM

homer911 wrote: »

I would not go quite so far as to describe it as nonsense, but the question has to be "Why?".

This doctrine/dogma adds nothing to the saving grace of the gospel, has no basis in the scriptures and fulfills no prophecy, but seems to have been created to fill a "gap" in our knowledge of Mary that doesn't need to be filled. In some places, such as the references to Jesus brothers, it even seems to contradict scripture. So why? Why did the early church come up with this and when? Was there 1st century eye-witness knowledge (if so why was it not written down, or referenced in some way), or was it created much later?

I'd love to know how this doctrine came about and what the reasoning behind it was.

Very simple. Mary was the Theotokos, the God carrier. As such, she had to be pure and unsullied by Original Sin. The only way that could be argued was by saying that she was conceived without Original Sin, unlike the rest of humanity.
And since she was not like the rest of humanity, the rest of her life had to match that idea. She had to remain ever virgin and not die and corrupt like an ordinary human being.

It all makes perfect sense if you start from the premise that the God carrier has to be pure

katydid · 12-02-2015 06:59PM

Festus wrote: »

Why Virgin Birth? Obviously God could only become incarnate in an innocent and perfect woman.

Why no loss to her virginity during the birth? Because she was conceived without original sin the consequences of original sin do not apply.
.

Presuming she didn't have a caesarian, I've always wondered about, physiologically, that could have happened...

homer911 · 12-02-2015 07:04PM

Festus wrote: »

Why was she conceived immaculately? Obviously God could not become incarnate in a woman tainted with original sin so her conception has to have been immaculate to prepare her for her later role.

Why Virgin Birth? Obviously God could only become incarnate in an innocent and perfect woman.

Why no loss to her virginity during the birth? Because she was conceived without original sin the consequences of original sin do not apply.

Why Perpetual Virginity? Obviously Mary is no ordinary woman for she is the Mother of God and as the perfect woman who bore Jesus she is Sacred.

Why bodily assumption into Heaven? It all follows from all of the above and the fact that her perfect body would be incorruptible, as the first human saved by Jesus, free from sin, and an example of what lies before us at the resurrection of our bodies at the end of the world.

Hi Festus. I completely respect your beliefs and your right to believe them, I just dont understand. If Mary was conceived immaculately surely this would been both noteworthy in terms of the gospel story and, given its significance, prophesied in the Old Testament, yet we hear nothing of this until church tradition emerges, a bit like the names of the "three" wise men.

Festus · 12-02-2015 07:06PM

silverharp wrote: »

its logical but also ties into local greek and Egyptian and other local myths that preceded christianity, it was fashionable...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christmas

It is not logical to conflate mythical beings with real people.

Festus · 12-02-2015 07:15PM

homer911 wrote: »

Hi Festus. I completely respect your beliefs and your right to believe them, I just dont understand. If Mary was conceived immaculately surely this would been both noteworthy in terms of the gospel story and, given its significance, prophesied in the Old Testament, yet we hear nothing of this until church tradition emerges, a bit like the names of the "three" wise men.

We first hear of it in the Gospel of Luke

"And the angel came in unto her, and said, hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." - Luke 1:28

The Greek word used is kecharitomene and is translated as "full of grace" which is describing her perfection. To be perfect one has to be free of original sin. To be free of original sin God has to have intervened in her conception.

Festus · 12-02-2015 07:17PM

katydid wrote: »

Presuming she didn't have a caesarian, I've always wondered about, physiologically, that could have happened...

With God anything is possible so it is not inconceivable that she became more elastic than is normally the case.

Or Jesus did.

PlainP · 12-02-2015 07:25PM

Festus wrote: »

We first hear of it in the Gospel of Luke

"And the angel came in unto her, and said, hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." - Luke 1:28

The Greek word used is kecharitomene and is translated as "full of grace" which is describing her perfection. To be perfect one has to be free of original sin. To be free of original sin God has to have intervened in her conception.

You put a lot of "faith" in that book.

There is a very well know "religion" called Scientology.

They also take their beliefs from a book.
This book is a know work of fiction.

I'd say in 6000 years scientologist will also be quoting from that book and state that it is truth.

Believing in something doesn't make it real.

On the Mary issue, there has never been one woman in the past 6000 years who has conceived a child without having sex.

The catholic religion was made up by a load of men who wanted to control people. They hijacked the Jesus story from so many other mthys and legends that were around at the time.

Just my opinion of course....

silverharp · 12-02-2015 07:26PM

Festus wrote: »

It is not logical to conflate mythical beings with real people.

it absolutely is worth commenting on if the Jesus story can be shown to be embellished with popular lore of the time

silverharp · 12-02-2015 07:33PM

katydid wrote: »

It all makes perfect sense if you start from the premise that the God carrier has to be pure

its a very old fashioned patriarchal way of looking at things though. If I was a redeeming god that wanted to go down the human birth route , having a mother that was a crack hoe would be much more inclusive and deliciously subversive

Festus · 12-02-2015 07:36PM

silverharp wrote: »

its a very old fashioned patriarchal way of looking at things though. If I was a redeeming god that wanted to go down the human birth route , having a mother that was a crack hoe would be much more inclusive and deliciously subversive

Troll noted, however is that not the plan Satan has for his son ?

katydid · 12-02-2015 08:13PM

Festus wrote: »

With God anything is possible so it is not inconceivable that she became more elastic than is normally the case.

Or Jesus did.

The mind boggles

Safehands · 12-02-2015 08:42PM

Festus wrote: »

It is not logical to conflate mythical beings with real people.

Very interesting comment Festus. Let's take Adam as an example. Some believe he was real, because the Bible tells them so, others think he was a mythical being.
For Adam to have been a real person who lived in the garden with Eve, we have to believe the Genesis version of creation. To believe this version, you really have to exclude the big bang theory and evolution. You have to believe that light, night and day, fruit and seeds were created before the sun which only came on day four. Whoever wrote the Genesis account clearly did not have a scientific background. Adam and Eve arrived on the sixth day.
The only way that this story could have any credibility is if we put loads of caveats in place, with a barrow load of if's and perhapses, because it clearly did not happen as it was written in the Bible. In a Universe where plants grow without the sun, or where daylight exists without any source of light, anything can happen. Maybe snakes could have intelligence and could have a reasonable conversation with the man of the house.
It is in this make believe world that "original sin" emanated. If all of the above did not happen, then neither did Adam's first sin. Adam was a mythical figure, never a real person. If he was a mythical figure then the Immaculate Conception is also a myth. The only way one can believe in original sin is if one believes in Adam and Eve and talking snakes. So all the talk of Mary's "sinless body" falls apart if we don't believe that plants grew before the sun was even made.
As you said Festus, It is not logical to conflate mythical beings with real people.

I need a drink!

noel farrell · 12-02-2015 08:58PM

i seem to remember reading in the bible, All have fallen short of the glory of god, It does not say except mary

Festus · 12-02-2015 09:38PM

PlainP wrote: »

Just my opinion of course....

anything constructive to contribute or are you only here to denigrate?

Festus · 12-02-2015 09:40PM

Safehands wrote: »

I need a drink!

I wouldn't. Or keep it to one lest your gobbledygook become more nonesensical

hinault · 12-02-2015 09:48PM

There can be no doubt as to the level of esteem in which God holds Our Lady.

The Gospels and the other books of the New Testament all attest to the Mary's special place in God's church.

The book of Revelations attest to the Devil seeking to kill Mary's Son during childbirth for example.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

PlainP · 12-02-2015 09:48PM

Festus wrote: »

anything constructive to contribute or are you only here to denigrate?

I haven't read the bible so no I would not have anything constructive to add.

I won't denigrate either.

As it is the Christianity forum I'm not going to get myself in trouble.

Just wanted to give my opinion.

I admire your enthusiasm with all things holy I just don't agree with it.

I once felt a bit lost feeling that I needed to believe in something, that it would somehow make me happier.
I came to realise that only I can make myself happy.

Its a romantic notion the idea of an all loving being that watches over you. Its safe I suppose.

But I'm enjoying the thread so please continue...

hinault · 12-02-2015 10:08PM

homer911 wrote: »

Hi Festus. I completely respect your beliefs and your right to believe them, I just dont understand. If Mary was conceived immaculately surely this would been both noteworthy in terms of the gospel story and, given its significance, prophesied in the Old Testament, yet we hear nothing of this until church tradition emerges, a bit like the names of the "three" wise men.

Genesis 3:15 would appear to prophesise Mary, and the birth of the Redeemer.

In the New Testament, Luke 1:28 records Gabriel attest to Mary being "full of Grace".

If you accept that Jesus is the son of God, it it reasonable to assume that God, being perfect, would require the earthly mother of God's Son to be also perfect.

I don't think that this requirement for perfection of mother of Jesus is unreasonable.

silverharp · 12-02-2015 10:29PM

hinault wrote: »

There can be no doubt as to the level of esteem in which God holds Our Lady.

The Gospels and the other books of the New Testament all attest to the Mary's special place in God's church.

how do you explain St Paul not being aware of this?The question is did Jesus relate this theology to his disciples or did it creep into the later gospels in which case its made up

hinault · 12-02-2015 10:58PM

silverharp wrote: »

how do you explain St Paul not being aware of this?

What was St.Paul unaware of?

silverharp · 12-02-2015 11:09PM

hinault wrote: »

What was St.Paul unaware of?

the virgin birth and any of the associated theology to do with Mary

hinault · 12-02-2015 11:22PM

silverharp wrote: »

the virgin birth and any of the associated theology to do with Mary

One could make the assumption that St.Paul was aware that the gospel writers had articulated the issue of the Virgin Birth?

Actually if you read Paul's writings, while he mentions Jesus throughout his writings, Paul doesn't make reference to specific events in Jesus life except for
the Last Supper (Corinthians), the Cruxification (Corinthians and Philippians) and Jesus Resurrection (Philippians). There is no mention of miracles that Jesus performed for example.

Peregrinus · 13-02-2015 01:03AM

silverharp wrote: »

the virgin birth and any of the associated theology to do with Mary

What hinault said. Paul tells us practically nothing in the way of biographical detail about Jesus, or indeed about what Jesus taught, and he mentions Mary even less. His letters are entirely devoted to theological reflection and analysis of the significance of Jesus, and of his birth, death and resurrection.

This could be because Paul didn't know any of the biographical detail, and had only a hazy knowledge of what Jesus taught. But a more plausible explanation is that biographical detail and/or summary of the teachings of Jesus was simply not the purpose of his writing. He was, after all, writing to existing Christian communities or individuals who already knew about Jesus.

And this applies in spades as far as Mary is concerned. Paul barely mentions her. You can argue that this means he didn't know about her, but that ignores the obvious and more credible alternative; that his readership did know about her, and didn't stand need of instruction from Paul on the subject.

silverharp · 13-02-2015 07:39AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

And this applies in spades as far as Mary is concerned. Paul barely mentions her. You can argue that this means he didn't know about her, but that ignores the obvious and more credible alternative; that his readership did know about her, and didn't stand need of instruction from Paul on the subject.

I dont buy that, I'd imagine that any senior catholic official today would hardly go a year without mentioning Mary at some stage, the silence is glaring. But back it up again, why didnt Jesus talk about his own birth and his mother? If Jesus isnt recorded revealing these momentous facts to his followers/public then the obvious conclusion that it was added in later as the virgin birth was a common idea in Roman and Greek lore.

Peregrinus · 13-02-2015 08:00AM

silverharp wrote: »

I dont buy that, I'd imagine that any senior catholic official today would hardly go a year without mentioning Mary at some stage, the silence is glaring. But back it up again, why didnt Jesus talk about his own birth and his mother? If Jesus isn't recorded revealing these momentous facts to his followers/public then the obvious conclusion that it was added in later as the virgin birth was a common idea in Roman and Greek lore.

We're going round in circles here, silverharp. As already pointed out the virgin birth is recorded in the gospels, and as a Christian belief certainly predates them. If it was "added in" it certainly wasn't added in later; it was added in at a time when there were many first generation Christians who had been around in the time of Christ. Quite why they would have been "borrowing from Greek and Roman lore" is not clear. Besides, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your claim that "the virgin birth was a common idea in Roman and Greek lore" is flat-out untrue. Birth as the offspring of a divine father and a human mother is common, and the opposite is occasional. But these are not virgin births; there is always sex involved.

Bottom line: the virgin birth is well-documented in the NT as an early Christian belief, and it has no parallel in either the Judaic or Grecian traditions that were influential in the society of the time. The parsimonious explanation for the Christian belief in the virgin birth is that it was a belief orginating in the early Christian community. That doesn't make the belief true, but there isn't a great case for saying that it's a late addition borrowed from a different religious tradition.

homer911 · 13-02-2015 09:03AM

Festus wrote: »

We first hear of it in the Gospel of Luke

"And the angel came in unto her, and said, hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." - Luke 1:28

The Greek word used is kecharitomene and is translated as "full of grace" which is describing her perfection. To be perfect one has to be free of original sin. To be free of original sin God has to have intervened in her conception.

Equating "full of grace" to perfection is too much of a leap for me I'm afraid. I could easily accept that an innocent, well brought up teenager, respectul to her elders and family, 2000 years ago, could be descibed as full of grace, but it doesnt make her perfect. Also using one verse in the Bible to build an entire doctrine around, when it adds nothing to the message of the gospel, is just going to far for me. I was honestly hoping for a more positive and definitiive answer but we will have to agree to disagree, and as I've already said, respect your right to believe it.

Someone has already referred to Romans 3:23..

Safehands · 13-02-2015 09:38AM

homer911 wrote: »

Equating "full of grace" to perfection is too much of a leap for me I'm afraid. I could easily accept that an innocent, well brought up teenager, respectul to her elders and family, 2000 years ago, could be descibed as full of grace, but it doesnt make her perfect. Also using one verse in the Bible to build an entire doctrine around, when it adds nothing to the message of the gospel, is just going to far for me. I was honestly hoping for a more positive and definitiive answer but we will have to agree to disagree, and as I've already said, respect your right to believe it.

If perfection necessitates a belief in Adam eating an apple, then perfection is a myth, just like Adam.

silverharp · 13-02-2015 10:17AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

We're going round in circles here, silverharp. As already pointed out the virgin birth is recorded in the gospels, and as a Christian belief certainly predates them. If it was "added in" it certainly wasn't added in later; it was added in at a time when there were many first generation Christians who had been around in the time of Christ. Quite why they would have been "borrowing from Greek and Roman lore" is not clear. Besides, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your claim that "the virgin birth was a common idea in Roman and Greek lore" is flat-out untrue. Birth as the offspring of a divine father and a human mother is common, and the opposite is occasional. But these are not virgin births; there is always sex involved.

Bottom line: the virgin birth is well-documented in the NT as an early Christian belief, and it has no parallel in either the Judaic or Grecian traditions that were influential in the society of the time. The parsimonious explanation for the Christian belief in the virgin birth is that it was a belief orginating in the early Christian community. That doesn't make the belief true, but there isn't a great case for saying that it's a late addition borrowed from a different religious tradition.

But its only mentioned in 2 of the 4 gospels and Paul when he mentions Mary in relation to Jesus he relates her as a normal mother so appears unaware of anything unusual about her.
If the birth story was true then that would have been part of jesus growing up no? ie his parents and siblings would have grown up with the 3 wise men stories etc because they were there when it happened. Is Jesus quoted as relating his own birth story? Was he aware of it himself? Is there any suggestion that they hit it from him?

Nick Park · 13-02-2015 10:41AM

hinault wrote: »

If you accept that Jesus is the son of God, it it reasonable to assume that God, being perfect, would require the earthly mother of God's Son to be also perfect.

I don't think that this requirement for perfection of mother of Jesus is unreasonable.

I think it is extremely unreasonable, because you have to apply the same logic to earlier generations as well.

If Mary had to be perfect to produce a perfect Jesus, then it logically follows that Mary's parents would have to be perfect to produce a perfect Mary.

Ah, but hang on. Then it would require that four perfect grandparents were required to produce Mary's two perfect parents. And, of course, that in turn would require eight perfect great-grandparents etc.

So your 'reasonable' argument necessitates an ever-increasing number of perfect immaculately-conceived ancestors stretching all the way back to the beginning of humanity.

Safehands · 13-02-2015 12:05PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Your 'reasonable' argument necessitates an ever-increasing number of perfect immaculately-conceived ancestors stretching all the way back to the beginning of humanity.

And that, dear folks, is exactly what happened. Every baby in the world is conceived "immaculately" ie; without original or any other sin on their perfect little souls. They are born as sinless, beautiful babies.

Virgin Mary

Comments