The Virgin Mary

So you are suggesting that because I don't believe such things as you do then I have a closed mind and missed the mark in my education, eh?
Well, think what you will, your comments are very opinionated (from what I have read), so what is this, the pot calling the kettle black?
Thanks for caring:p

I have found much in my search, it just isn't the refuge you seem to be defending.
I'm sorry. Maybe I missed something here. You do know you are on a Christian forum, and you are telling Christians that what they believe to be false?...Just so we understand each other...? You also imply that unlike you, no one else has an understanding of the theology of Christianity, in that those who truly understand it would find it to be false and would walk away from it...(in disgust I presume)? Is that what you are trying to get through to people like me?

and i do indeed have a strong opinion. But I can back my opinions with facts. Now, whether you choose to accept those facts is a totally different matter.
 
I'm sorry. Maybe I missed something here. You do know you are on a Christian forum, and you are telling Christians that what they believe to be false?...Just so we understand each other...? You also imply that unlike you, no one else has an understanding of the theology of Christianity, in that those who truly understand it would find it to be false and would walk away from it...(in disgust I presume)? Is that what you are trying to get through to people like me?

and i do indeed have a strong opinion. But I can back my opinions with facts. Now, whether you choose to accept those facts is a totally different matter.
Having spent many years as a christian I can say what I like about it.
Earned right for time served.
I am not disgusted with it.
There are many good things to be said about it (in general).

I am merely making observations about things that I have found.
You allege that I am talking from a high horse:confused:, but many times I have said that all I have are speculations.
Maybe it is because I say that that is all any of us have....speculations.
Sorry for kicking your sacred cow.
Well, no, I am not sorry.
Needs to be kicked a bit.
 
Having spent many years as a christian I can say what I like about it.
Earned right for time served.
I am not disgusted with it.
There are many good things to be said about it (in general).

I am merely making observations about things that I have found.
You allege that I am talking from a high horse:confused:, but many times I have said that all I have are speculations.
Maybe it is because I say that that is all any of us have....speculations.
Sorry for kicking your sacred cow.
Well, no, I am not sorry.
Needs to be kicked a bit.
Weeeeelllll, I got news for you. Christianity is not a "RIGHT" to be earned. It is a gift to be accepted or rejected...that is the individual's call. God does not intervene in this matter. How could God? To do anything else would not be a gift, but forced compliance, which voids free will, and a whole bunch of other things...

Christianity doesn't need to be kicked a bit...people do. (you really got to get the priorities right). :eek:

Oh, I'm not Hindi, I don't have a sacred "Cow"...
 
Now, back to the Virgin Mary. Let us consider:

1. She was of royal lineage
2. She was about 14 years of age (perfect birthing age for a life expectancy of 40 years)
3. She was betrothed in the Jewish tradition
4. She discovers she is pregnant
5. Suicide was an option for such situations
6. Her husband to be was an honorable man and intended to put her away in a distant place, quietly, rather than her being stoned to death
7. He changed his mind and suffured for it
8. She suffured for it
9. They had to go away for two plus years, from their home town

I never got into the Herod thing...
 
Found this about the virgin: YouTube - Statue Fail

When Moses was up on the mount the people were building a....sacred cow.
They certainly weren't Hindi either.
It was a golden bull based on an egyptian god of redemption/providence. (they wanted better than living in tents in the desert, thought Moses was dead (so did his brother Aarron), and they lost what little faith they had, so they reverted back to what they used to deal with...

Heh, here is irony for you: Moses never made it into the promised land. For all his faith, God's promise that the generation entering into the new land would be a new generation, meant that Moses had to be excluded. He died overlooking the land his decendents would garner for their own. They put his body in the mountain. But God kept his exact promise to Moses. He said his people would find a land of milk and honey to call their own, for all time...
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't see either why people have such a problem with virgin birth. Jesus did miracles aplenty so why wouldn't God perform one to bring Jesus into the world. I mean, really, he created everything. How can you not have a problem with that if you can't even handle one virgin giving birth. Seriously it's a bit backwards if you ask me.

I have no problem with virgin birth. I have no problem with miracles either, like the miracle of the creation of...say the universe. Or life, maybe. A virgin birth is a cakewalk next to those miracles if ya ask me...

Um, Q as far as the church goes as a whole and coherent unit (if the term applies) I can't really say anything, but some people in every time will always twist the scriptures or focus on particular ones to back up their view or cause, often a view or cause that has very bad consequences for many many people.

Look at the crusades.

The witch hunts.

People that use scripture as an excuse to publicly humiliate or abuse homosexuals, women, jews.

People do bad things. And not everyone that is involved in the church, or was, especially when to be a leader of a church meant having more power than it does now, was in it for good reasons.

So it's not safe to say that the church as a whole does this, or deliberately tries to do this. But I believe that it is quite safe to say that some leaders of the church at some times have used scripture in a self-serving way for self-serving means.

It's kind of inevitable, human nature being what it is.

I mean, everyone interprets the bible a bit differently, because everyone is different, and is drawing from different experiences. It can't be helped.

It's just kinda the way people are.

I guess this too is just a personal opinion, but really, what isn't? :)
 
Holy happinesss, between the time of me reading this:

This is a personal opinion, unless you are collegiate in the ways of theology in general and a specific church body in particular? That would imply you know more about, oh say the inner workings of the Catholic Church politic, than others here on IO?

Some how, I have my doubts. But in any event, I would welcome evidence to conclude your hypothosis on this matter. I'm always up for an eye opener.


And posting my reply, there was apparently an insanely large argument...

Did I miss a page? Probably. But that was the post I was referring to Q. Just for some perspective to the insanity. :p

Man, I'm just so random sometimes... :rolleyes:
 
It was a golden bull based on an egyptian god of redemption/providence. (they wanted better than living in tents in the desert, thought Moses was dead (so did his brother Aarron), and they lost what little faith they had, so they reverted back to what they used to deal with...
The coincidence which made me think more deeply on these things was the timing of all this.
Moses using the ram symbols, the herald of the age of Aries.
The people building the golden bull (Taurus) as they were still stuck in the old ways, the coincidence being that the time when this happened was the shifting of the ages according to the Mazzaroth.
Jesus heralded the coming age of Pisces, fishers of men, sign of the fish, look at a pope hat (hint* looks like a fish*).
It is all very curious.
Is it not?
 
Last first, yes I'm stating my belief, and yes Unity has some principles.
Then it does have a credo and a dogma. You said you didn't before, but OK...

There is only One Power and One Presence active in the universe and in my life, God, the Good, Omnipotent.
Not a Christian doctrine. No self-will, No self-determining intellect? No freedom? Are you claiming that man is an automaton?

I don't think so ... then surely you must accept that the power active and present in one's life is ... oneself?

Christian (in fact Abrahamic) doctrine assumes the existence of God, and the existence of man, and a dialogue between the two ... otherwise we can only read Scripture as god talking to Himself, surely?

Our essence is of God; therefore, we are inherently good. This God essence was fully expressed in Jesus, the Christ.
Well for one, you've already argued that Jesus is a fiction character produced by the authors of a mysterious new cult, so why reference a work of fiction as evidence of anything?

For two, from my point above it seems to me evident that 'God' and 'man' are not synonymous. Man is a created nature, God is not, so we are not 'essentially' God, nor are we essentially divine. If we were, we could not err, could we? If we were essentially omnipotent, and omniscient, how can we suffer ignorance, in fact, how can we suffer at all?

We are co-creators with God, creating reality through thoughts held in mind.
So reality is a mental concept, there is no such thing as objective truth? Objective reality? Very post-modern, but nothing to do with Christianity.

By positing the existence of God as 'One Power' you then contradict that statement by elevating human mental activity onto the same plane as the divine. What God, as 'One Power' chooses to grace you with as a gift — co-creation — you assume as a right, which I would have thought He would find rather presumptuous and insulting (Tower of babel springs to mind)?

As thoughts do not necessarily become realities, surely that argument is flawed, too, unless you're saying that everyone makes up his own cosmos and his own God?

Through affirmative prayer and meditation, I connect with God and bring out the good in my life.
And not works? You really need to read Scripture more closely.

And again, it seems that the general implication is that God is there to serve your good.

Christian doctrine, on the other hand, takes as axiomatic that man not being the alpha and omega of himself, therefore his good is dependent upon what good god has determined for him, so rather than connection with God to bring out my own goods, it would be wiser to connect with God to seek the goods He has in mind for you, and humanity as a whole.

Supposing, for example, that God asked you to suffer to some degree, for the benfit of the good of all? According to your way of looking at it, you'd say no ... no good for me, so no go for you?

Through thoughts, words and actions, we live in the truth we know.
Which seems to me to imply walking on the spot. I would rather say in Faith and Hope in the Word of God, we move toward the life that we might have...

But I'm not required to dance to any of the above tune. It is all open for discussion. I'm also allowed to read any book I want, watch any movie I want, attend any church, synagogue or temple I want...
OK, so you have principles, which no-one is obliged to follow, so no principles really. Just a talking-point, I suppose?

So surely 'Unity' covers everything and anything ... we used to joke there are two kinds of Catholic, those who know it, and those who don't. Your lot seem to have taken the joke to heart!

And yes, we accept Catholics and Hindus and Blacks and Whites, and Baptists and JWs and Gays and Lesbians, Jews and Muslims...all are welcome to come and study with us, attend church, attend classes, and break bread.
And by the same token rapists etc., as you have no moral or ethical code.

You are correct, I don't believe in the doctrine, we believe in Christ.
You mean you believe in your mental projection of Christ ... you certainly can't say 'we' can you, as you might have absolutely nothing in common with the guy next to you, who doesn't believe in Christ...

... In fact Wil, I'm really sorry, but the only Unity is the unity of nothing in common? The unity of nothing at all?

But again you can't generalize, there are many Unity members and Preachers who do believe in the virgin birth, and we that don't don't have an issue with that.
You see, your just like the Theosophists ... the philosophy of no philosophy ... or rather, the philosophy of whatever takes your fancy.

Thomas
 
The coincidence which made me think more deeply on these things was the timing of all this.
Moses using the ram symbols, the herald of the age of Aries.
The people building the golden bull (Taurus) as they were still stuck in the old ways, the coincidence being that the time when this happened was the shifting of the ages according to the Mazzaroth.
Jesus heralded the coming age of Pisces, fishers of men, sign of the fish, look at a pope hat (hint* looks like a fish*).
It is all very curious.
Is it not?
I never really considered the zodiacal in biblical life and events, before...if this thought does have merit (solid grounding in the way things are actually coming to pass), then we are entering the age of Aquarius, which is the new beginning, not as many claim, the end...or was that Aries?...I get them mixed up. Picses is the last of the Zodiacal signs, so wouldn't that signify the end of an era, with a heralding from Christ, to look towards the new beginning? (I guess that would be Aries).
 
Last edited:
Holy happinesss, between the time of me reading this:




And posting my reply, there was apparently an insanely large argument...

Did I miss a page? Probably. But that was the post I was referring to Q. Just for some perspective to the insanity. :p

Man, I'm just so random sometimes... :rolleyes:
Lol, randomness is good...
 
The coincidence which made me think more deeply on these things was the timing of all this...
... It is all very curious.
Is it not?

"And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years"
Genesis 1:14

Thomas
 
The Bible is full of miracles. The way I see it, either you're open to miracles or you're not. If you're not, you can still get a lot out of the Bible by trying to understand the meaning of the miracles metaphorically/symbolically. In fact, if you believe in miracles (I do), you can still get a lot out of trying to understand the deeper symbolic meaning behind each of them. Because every one of them seems to have one or more of these deeper meanings. The danger in literalism is that one might miss the full richness of the sacred scriptures. The danger in making everything metaphoric is that you might close your mind and heart to miracles in your own life.

For people who have no problem with miracles, but have a problem with the virgin birth: why? From a feminist perspective, the virgin birth is laden with all sorts of extraneous junk that is problematic- including the linking of sexuality to original sin (so should we be procreating like amebas? ;)) and the treatment of Mary as super-sacred because of some proposed lifelong celibacy (so being a married woman and good mother isn't sacred enough? :eek:). However, these ideas are stuff piled on top of the miracle itself, and are not Biblical but rather later doctrinal add-ons. So if you can peel away the stuff you might associate with the virgin birth and just look at the Bible itself, all it says is that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Why? Well, whether he was or he wasn't, the general Christian belief (i.e., the "non-heretical" one) is that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Back then, people probably did not fully understand conception and birth, and the idea that he was born of a virgin would have underscored and supported the idea that he was both human and divine (and not one of the competing theories: that he was only divine appearing to be human, that he was 50/50, that he was just a nice and wise fully human guy, that he was an angel, etc.). Now that we know more about conception, it is feasible to think that Jesus' divinity has nothing much to do with his being born of a virgin (i.e., he could have a full set of human DNA from mom and dad and still be divine). But all that kind of begs the question of why any of it is important.

The way I see it, why not believe in the virgin birth. If one is going to believe in a God that paradoxically is both one and three, that somehow provides the means of salvation through simultaneously still being God and yet also sending Himself into being both God and human, and so on (burning bush, Jonah in a whale, on and on)... then why not the virgin birth? And if you get rid of all the miracles as literal and investigate them all symbolically, then still- why not also the virgin birth?
 
I never really considered the zodiacal in biblical life and events, before...if this thought does have merit (solid grounding in the way things are actually coming to pass), then we are entering the age of Aquarius, which is the new beginning, not as many claim, the end...or was that Aries?...I get them mixed up. Picses is the last of the Zodiacal signs, so wouldn't that signify the end of an era, with a heralding from Christ, to look towards the new beginning? (I guess that would be Aries).
Aquarius...(go find a man with a water jar and he will have an ass prepared for us) 12 sons, 12 tribes (different than the sons), 12 apostles and the S(u)n, follow a star...
 
Aquarius...(go find a man with a water jar and he will have an ass prepared for us) 12 sons, 12 tribes (different than the sons), 12 apostles and the S(u)n, follow a star...
But doesn't Aquarius precede Pisces, and Aries procedes?
 
The Bible is full of miracles. The way I see it, either you're open to miracles or you're not. If you're not, you can still get a lot out of the Bible by trying to understand the meaning of the miracles metaphorically/symbolically. In fact, if you believe in miracles (I do), you can still get a lot out of trying to understand the deeper symbolic meaning behind each of them. Because every one of them seems to have one or more of these deeper meanings. The danger in literalism is that one might miss the full richness of the sacred scriptures. The danger in making everything metaphoric is that you might close your mind and heart to miracles in your own life.

For people who have no problem with miracles, but have a problem with the virgin birth: why? From a feminist perspective, the virgin birth is laden with all sorts of extraneous junk that is problematic- including the linking of sexuality to original sin (so should we be procreating like amebas? ;)) and the treatment of Mary as super-sacred because of some proposed lifelong celibacy (so being a married woman and good mother isn't sacred enough? :eek:). However, these ideas are stuff piled on top of the miracle itself, and are not Biblical but rather later doctrinal add-ons. So if you can peel away the stuff you might associate with the virgin birth and just look at the Bible itself, all it says is that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Why? Well, whether he was or he wasn't, the general Christian belief (i.e., the "non-heretical" one) is that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Back then, people probably did not fully understand conception and birth, and the idea that he was born of a virgin would have underscored and supported the idea that he was both human and divine (and not one of the competing theories: that he was only divine appearing to be human, that he was 50/50, that he was just a nice and wise fully human guy, that he was an angel, etc.). Now that we know more about conception, it is feasible to think that Jesus' divinity has nothing much to do with his being born of a virgin (i.e., he could have a full set of human DNA from mom and dad and still be divine). But all that kind of begs the question of why any of it is important.

The way I see it, why not believe in the virgin birth. If one is going to believe in a God that paradoxically is both one and three, that somehow provides the means of salvation through simultaneously still being God and yet also sending Himself into being both God and human, and so on (burning bush, Jonah in a whale, on and on)... then why not the virgin birth? And if you get rid of all the miracles as literal and investigate them all symbolically, then still- why not also the virgin birth?
As the devil's advocate here, the question is a matter of genetics...how did a woman who was virgin (assuming no semen ever came near here), give birth to a bouncing baby BOY?

Could she (Mary) have been a Downs child? It might explain why some say she never had another child with Joseph...what it would not explain is her uncanny ability to get her "kid" to do as she requested, despite the potential negative ramifications...

Could it have been a lie? I find it ironic how quickly Joseph disappears from the scene during Jesus' life...

Or, could it simply be that "God" intervened? (wooo):eek::eek::)
 
As the devil's advocate here, the question is a matter of genetics...how did a woman who was virgin (assuming no semen ever came near here), give birth to a bouncing baby BOY?

Could she (Mary) have been a Downs child? It might explain why some say she never had another child with Joseph...what it would not explain is her uncanny ability to get her "kid" to do as she requested, despite the potential negative ramifications...

Could it have been a lie? I find it ironic how quickly Joseph disappears from the scene during Jesus' life...

Or, could it simply be that "God" intervened? (wooo):eek::eek::)
So you are saying that Jesus siblings were not by Joseph?? Or they were all virgin births?? All G!d's only begotten?? What are you saying?
 
But doesn't Aquarius precede Pisces, and Aries procedes?
some astro-theology
The Egyptians annually slew a sacred bull in atonement for the sins of the realm (Walker, Encyclopedia, p. 126).
The concept was that the blood of one god, or the symbol of that god, could cleanse the sins of many.
From this ritual arose the belief that blood had to be spilled if sins were to be forgiven.
However, after two thousand or so years the constellation that had rose at the spring equinox slipped from Taurus the Bull into Aries the Ram, heralding the birth of yet another new god, this time creating a theological storm in Egypt which ultimately led to the Exodus where Moses, as Akhenaton, would leave with a modified and simplified Monotheism in rejection of the complexity of the Osiris based faith of his time in light of Aries surplanting Taurus as the ruling constellation at the spring/vernal equinox.
Thus the Israelites where chastised by Moses when constructing the golden calf (symbolic of Taurus) when Moses was leading them away from such a bull centered faith to one centered on a ram/lamb (Aries as the new ruling constellation at the spring equinox).
They distinguished themselves from the bull-worshippers by using the blood of the lamb as a sacred fluid and symbol.
For Moses was leading his people, chosen with lamb's blood, to a re-new religion which was simpler than the one previous especially in light of the new age which had begun under the sign of Aries.
This was the new world age marked by Aries and thus a new god was required which he called "Aten" but known today as YHWH. Returning from Mount Sinai with the new laws of the new world order, Moses was angered that his chosen people were looking backwards to the bull (Golden Calf) instead of forward to the lamb.

History shows us that when the spring equinox moves into a new constellation, a new age and a new god emerge.
This god is either the son of the older god, or a new concept represented by a new god, which springs forth from the collective unconscious.
With the movement of the equinox from the stars of Taurus into the stars of Aries, which occurred in about 2,000 B.C.E., the movement was away from the sacred bull of the Egyptians and the god Horus who had many forms-one of which was the bull.

Pisces moved into the lead position in the Ring of Life around two thousand years ago, when the spring equinox heliacal rising slipped from Aries the Ram to Pisces the Fishes.
The coming of the age of Pisces, the new world order, was eagerly awaited, heralded in 6 B.C.E. by a triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in Pisces.
In his fourth Eclogue, Virgil announced it would be the return of the golden age (De Santillana and von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill, p. 244). This conjunction was the astronomical highlight of the time, eagerly awaited and watched, and was later named, in Christian mythology, the Star of Bethlehem.
This association is more of an attempt by Christianity to claim Christ as the herald of the new age, rather than having any real basis in historical facts.

But the fish was an ancient symbol long before it was adopted by the new god.
It represented wisdom and was recognized as a female sign.
The symbol for the fish was derived from the yoni.
The Chinese Great Mother, called Kwan-yin, Yoni of Yonis, often appeared as a fish goddess (Walker, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, p. 313).
The Celts considered that eating fish would put new life in a womb (Green, Dictionary of Celtic Myth and Legends, p. 184).
Their hero, Tuan, was eaten by a fish and the fish in turn was eaten by the queen of Ireland who, in the fullness of time, gave birth to him.
Thus to eat of the salmon was also to grow in wisdom.

The Greeks incorporated the fish as a sacred symbol through Aphrodite, in her form as a fish goddess called Aphrodite Salacia (Walker, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, p. 314). She was depicted as a fertile mother nursing a child, and her temples always contained ponds of fish.
Her followers would eat fish on her holy day, which was Friday.
They were known as the fish eaters, and this custom was adopted by the Catholic Church who decreed that the eating of fish on a Friday, considered abstinence from meat, was a holy act required of its followers.

As the spring equinox moved into Pisces, the ram god sent his son, Christ, to save the world, and he became the god of fishes.
He was a fisherman fishing for men's souls.
His disciples were fishermen and one of his miracles, which proved him god, was the miracle of the loaves and fishes, where he was said to have fed five thousand on just a few fish and some bread.
The new religion adopted the sign of the Fish as their symbol.
The cross belonged to the pagans and was not incorporated into Christian symbolism until after the sixth century C.E. (Walker, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, p. 188).

The arrival of any new age heralds more than just a change of gods, for it represents a change in the way humans see the world.
One of the features of the Piscean new world order was that our concept of time and its cyclic nature became altered in our collective mind.
The new god now ruled forever, and thus everything was measured before or after his incarnation.
However, the concept of cycles, of there being an heir to every throne, that had been part of the myths of the Bull (Taurus) and the Ram (Aries), ended with Pisces.
For Christ had no children (according to christian doctrine) and the only way to acknowledge the whirlpool created by precession (the sinking of the constellations below the horizon at the vernal equinox where they were no longer visible before the rising of the sun) was to talk about a second coming - who would ostensibly be the new god of Aquarius.
For several centuries after Christ, Christians believed the second coming was immanent, forgetting that the cycle was several thousand years long.

On thing to remember is that these ages are not stand alone symbols.
To elaborate, the age of Pisces has its paired opposite which is Virgo.
Aquarius has as its opposite Leo.
Consider that when it was the age of Taurus, the adepts in Egypt had a scorpion tattooed on their foreheads, symbolizing scorpio, which was the opposite at that time.
This bears further thought.
 
Back
Top