The Virgin Mary

B

Bruce Michael

Well-Known Member
Messages
797
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Trans-Himalayas
It is a peculiar thing- Rudolf Steiner tells us that Mary was able to return to a state of virginity after she had conceived. This will be another mystery for the Emerging Church.



There were cases of "virgin" conceptions before the time of Jesus. How all this took place is explained very well by Alfred Heidenreich in his "Unknown in the Gospels".

According to Steiner the time has not come when the full truth concerning this mystery can be told to humanity as humanity is today.

Suffice to say that Joseph was the physical father of Jesus. This makes sense of the genealogies. Actually there are two genealogies and two Jesus children. All this was well known in the early Church.

Physical procreation was instituted by Jehovah not Lucifer. Rudolf Steiner has explained this in more detail.

-Br.Bruce
 
There is ample discussion of the Matthaen and Lucan bloodlines that answer the problem without posing two children ... the question being if there are two children of the same parents, then why two different bloodlines, surely?

Okham's Razor applies here, I think.

And failing that, some scholarly and informed research for balance.

Thomas
 
Another view is that the Perpetual Virginity of the Theotokos signifies not primarily the physical, but that it signifies her fidelity and her integrity, both with regard to herself and to her Creator.

The Blessed Virgin then, as a symbol of the feminine, exemplifies the idea of integrity of being and fidelity to vocation, and as such is second to none ... the fact that modernity reduces the discussion to one of sex and power politics simply shows how blind modernity is to the language of symbol.

In light of this, the perpetual physical virginity of the Theotokos, asserted by the Church, does so from its understanding of 'as above, so below' and again that the purified soul can manifest its physical form according to its own determination ... so Mary is, impossibly, both mother and virgin ... and Her son, impossibly, demonstrated the ability to Resurrect the body whole and entire, after being broken on the Cross.

The fact that Christ, post-resurrection, stills bears the wounds of the Cross, is a Mystery that few have fathomed...

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
There is ample discussion of the Matthaen and Lucan bloodlines that answer the problem without posing two children ... the question being if there are two children of the same parents, then why two different bloodlines, surely?

Okham's Razor applies here, I think.

And failing that, some scholarly and informed research for balance.

Thomas
Click to expand...

Occam's Razor is not accurate for all cases, by any means. It might prove to be blunt.

In this case we can apply it and come up trumps. By inserting two Jesus children into the mix, all the contradictions disappear! What could be more simple than that!

The children were born at different times to different mothers and fathers. "Jesus", "Mary" and "Joseph" were on the top ten names list for that era.

There have been a few books recently published on the subject examining the evidence, artistically and scripturally.

page 8, from Introduction by Will Marsh] The descriptions of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection are nearly identical in the synoptic Gospels and are very similar in John; the same is true for the Baptism. Many other events of the ministry of Jesus Christ are described in similar terms in the synoptic Gospels. Why is it that not the case for the Nativity?

How about a quotation from the Dead Sea Scrolls (see page 17) that predicts there will be two messiahs, one of the kingly line of David and the other of the priestly line of David?
Click to expand...

The Two Children by David Ovason , A Review by Bobby Matherne

>Her son, impossibly, demonstrated the ability to Resurrect the body whole >and entire, after being broken on the Cross.

Christ remade that Body whilst He dwelt in it during the three years.

If the Logos was incarnate in Jesus before then why don't we hear of the preaching, the healings and miracles till after the Baptism?


>The fact that Christ, post-resurrection, stills bears the wounds of the Cross, i>s a Mystery that few have fathomed...

Do you want to say more about it?

God Bless,
Br.Bruce
 
Bruce Michael said:
By inserting two Jesus children into the mix, all the contradictions disappear! What could be more simple than that!
Click to expand...

Is not the fact that one is the birthline through Joseph, and the other the birthline through Mary, which makes sense, is accepted by a ide number of scholars, simpler yet?

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
Is not the fact that one is the birthline through Joseph, and the other the birthline through Mary, which makes sense, is accepted by a ide number of scholars, simpler yet?

Thomas
Click to expand...

Only if you believe that Joseph was the physical father of Jesus.

Besides, as it reads they are both male lines- right down to Joseph.

As proven, this is no new speculation- well it is there in the Dead Sea scrolls! I believe these things can be spiritually researched and Christian initiates have found that there were two Jesus children. So I'm not just basing it on the scriptural evidence.
As I said there are a few books examining the issue in detail.

Best Wishes,
Br.Bruce
 
Thomas said:
Is not the fact that one is the birthline through Joseph, and the other the birthline through Mary, which makes sense, is accepted by a ide number of scholars, simpler yet?
Click to expand...

Bruce Michael said:
Only if you believe that Joseph was the physical father of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Bruce, wouldn't it makes sense even if one believed Jesus was legally adopted by Joseph?

Bruce Michael said:
Besides, as it reads they are both male lines- right down to Joseph.
Click to expand...

Was it not customary at the time for geneologies to be recorded in the masculine, even when accounting for the maternal bloodline?

InPeace,
InLove
 
The first question is why did the scribes record a bloodline anyway?

Assuming that both Matthew and Luke were believers that Jesus Christ was the Incarnate Son of God, then bloolines becomes something of an irrelevance.

For Matthew, a Jew addressing a primarily Jewish audience, the blooline shows that Jesus was spoken of by the prophets, and fulfilled all the predications made of a messiah.

For Luke, a Gentile to the Gentiles, the issue was not so pressing, but then tradition holds that Luke was close to Mary, and the opening of his account emphasises her part of ther story.

Two children throws up a whole host of questions, issues, paradoxes ... not least ... which one are we supposed to believe in?

Thomas
 
Why would a family have two children named Jesus? Were they twins? (Boy, the theological implications would that bring!)

I can imagine:

Joseph (calling to his son): Jesus!
Jesus: Yes?
Jesus: Yes?
Joseph: No, not you Jesus. The other Jesus.

He might as well named them Thing 1 and Thing 2.
 
>Two children throws up a whole host of questions, issues, paradoxes ... not l>east ... which one are we supposed to believe in?

I think we should just bother with the Truth- whatever it is.

Is that fair enough?
 
InLove said:
Bruce, wouldn't it makes sense even if one believed Jesus was legally adopted by Joseph?



Was it not customary at the time for geneologies to be recorded in the masculine, even when accounting for the maternal bloodline?

InPeace,
InLove
Click to expand...

Shalom,
I don't think they did bother the maternal bloodline.

Why was being part of the House of David so important if Joseph wasn't the physical father?

As a matter of fact I do believe that Joseph was the physical father- the Virgin Birth is a sacred Mystery.

And so there was a Solomon Jesus and a Nathan Jesus- of the kingly and priestly lines. As I said two Messiahs were predicted in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Now if someone were to get the oldest extant copies of Matthew and Luke they would find they both describe male lines- right down to Joseph. (One doesn't really have to go that far; it appears in more modern translations.)

BTW Matthew wasn't written in Greek- it was written in "Chaldee" or Aramaic- the language spoken during the Babylonian captivity. Jerome had problems translating it- he got his copy from the Ebionites, if my memory serves me correctly.

As I said the Two Jesus Children is an old idea, backed up today by initiate knowledge and the scriptural record.
-Br.Bruce
 
Dondi said:
Why would a family have two children named Jesus? Were they twins? (Boy, the theological implications would that bring!)

I can imagine:

Joseph (calling to his son): Jesus!
Jesus: Yes?
Jesus: Yes?
Joseph: No, not you Jesus. The other Jesus.

He might as well named them Thing 1 and Thing 2.
Click to expand...

Hi Dondi,

The two children were born years apart of different parents.

One was as we know, was born close to the time of John the Baptist.

It helps explain the Murder of the Innocents, and the Flight into Egypt.

Why wasn't John killed in the Murder of the Innocents?

All this is not something I declare as major doctrine. It is too complicated for simple believers.

God Bless,
Br.Bruce
 
I did post some links to a couple of ancient artworks depicting the Two Jesus children.
Some books:


The Two Children
A Study of the Two Jesus Children in Literature and Art
(Stock Code : 27406)
David Ovason

Ovason explores the ancient belief that two children, both named Jesus, were born in Bethlehem to two sets of parents, both named Joseph and Mary. This fascinating book uncovers religious sects and art following the tradition of Two Children.




The Incredible Births of Jesus

Ed Smith has done a daring deed in taking on the task of illuminating something crucial in the New Testament which has been glossed over since its origin -- the totally different accounts of the nativity in the Matthew and Luke Gospels. To a plain reading of the text, there are 2 different genealogies for Joseph, 2 sets of visitors to the baby Jesus who couldn't be more different, 2 different nativity settings, and more.


The Mystery of the Two Jesus Children: And the Descent of the Spirit of the Sun
Bernard Nesfield-Cookson

The Christian Gospels give two widely differing genealogies for Jesus, which have baffled theologians throughout the centuries. Not only are these genealogies irreconcilable, but the stories of the two accounts of the birth of Jesus, as given by Matthew and Luke, are also radically different. How can this be accounted for? An ancient tradition tells that there were two children named Jesus, a year apart in age and both born to parents named Mary and Joseph. These two children, brought up in close proximity, eventually ?united? in a mysterious way, resulting in a single ?Jesus? destined to grow up and fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament.
 
Why would the Gospel writers, intent of presenting Jesus Christ as the Son of God, in the face of massive opposition, introduce two children, not one?

Thomas
 
Bruce Michael said:
Why wasn't John killed in the Murder of the Innocents?
Click to expand...

I realize you were addressing Dondi, Bruce, but I'd like to offer my own musings. I hope no one minds.

I think that if the mass murder took place, it was mostly in Bethlehem and the immediate area. John the Baptist's parents are recorded in Luke as having lived in a town in the hill country of Judea, a town to which Mary had to travel some distance in order to visit Elizabeth before the birth of either Jesus or John. Now I realize that Mary is not recorded as having lived in Bethlehem, but neither is Elizabeth. I don't see anything to indicate that John the Baptist would have been in that immediate area at the time of Herod's decree.

InPeace,
InLove
 
InLove said:
I realize you were addressing Dondi, Bruce, but I'd like to offer my own musings. I hope no one minds.

I think that if the mass murder took place, it was mostly in Bethlehem and the immediate area. John the Baptist's parents are recorded in Luke as having lived in a town in the hill country of Judea, a town to which Mary had to travel some distance in order to visit Elizabeth before the birth of either Jesus or John. Now I realize that Mary is not recorded as having lived in Bethlehem, but neither is Elizabeth. I don't see anything to indicate that John the Baptist would have been in that immediate area at the time of Herod's decree.

InPeace,
InLove
Click to expand...

Yeah. What she said. :)
 
InLove said:
I realize you were addressing Dondi, Bruce, but I'd like to offer my own musings. I hope no one minds.

I think that if the mass murder took place, it was mostly in Bethlehem and the immediate area. John the Baptist's parents are recorded in Luke as having lived in a town in the hill country of Judea, a town to which Mary had to travel some distance in order to visit Elizabeth before the birth of either Jesus or John. Now I realize that Mary is not recorded as having lived in Bethlehem, but neither is Elizabeth. I don't see anything to indicate that John the Baptist would have been in that immediate area at the time of Herod's decree.

InPeace,
InLove
Click to expand...

The question then might be asked, why did they go all the way to Egypt to escape?

There are other matters that are solved as well. This thread has changed in nature.
 
Thomas said:
Why would the Gospel writers, intent of presenting Jesus Christ as the Son of God, in the face of massive opposition, introduce two children, not one?

Thomas
Click to expand...

The Church has preferred the simpler version so as not to confuse people.

The Gospel writers only wrote what they knew.

Some are ready for meat and some stick to their milk.

And I don't blame them for that.

-Br.Bruce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top