The Virginity of Mary

[3DOP]

An interesting paper:

Margaret Barker, "The Images of Mary in the Litany of Loreto," Usus Antiquior 1:2 (July 2010).

Hi Walker W. Thanks for the article. I agreed with most of what I skimmed. But I had to take exception to her closing remarks.

Barker closes her article with the following summation:

What do the images of Mary in the Litany of Loreto suggest? Surely, that there is an important element of the earliest Christian teaching about Mary that has been neglected and almost lost...In one sense, those questions are less important than the question: what did that composer know that we no longer know? The composer seems to have been summarising the larger collections of titles, but summarising them under recognisable ‘headings’. Mary was recognised and proclaimed as the Lady of the temple in Jerusalem, Wisdom, the Queen of Heaven, the Mother of the Lord.

I wouldn't want anyone to think that the Litany of Loreto is falling into disuse. When the children were young, I had an old book which I can not locate at this time, that gave explanations of each of the titles under which we ask our Lady's help and protection. Since May is the month of Mary, one year we recited the Litany every day for the month of May in her honor and I would read a portion of the book. Privately, my missal that I carry to every Mass has many other prayers including the Litany of Loreto to be recited every evening after examination of conscience and an act of contrition. I ordinarily use a different book for evening prayer, but when on vacation, I frequently have recourse to this longer version of evening prayers since I wish to travel light and I have time anyway since I am on vacation. In addition to this, at our parish, we recite the Litany every Sunday before both Masses except during the months of June and July when we instead use the Litany of the Sacred Heart and the Litany of the Precious Blood respectively. I remember an assignment my youngest son once had in school that I helped him with. He was supposed to write a short paper on the subject "Domus Aurea", explaining why we refer to our Blessed Mother by the title, "House of Gold".

Far from being lost, the liturgy of the Church recognizes our Lady in many of these titles and the number is slowly growing. The Litany of Loreto isn't a dead letter. There are at least two titles that have been added in the last two centuries. I welcome articles like Margaret Barker's. It was good. But non-Catholics usualy seem to have disdain for this information when it comes from a Catholic source. I think its just a pre-conditioned response. You can love your earthly mother and it doesn't compromise your love for the Lord. In fact, the Lord commands us to "honor our fathers and mothers" and THAT doesn't compromise the honor of the Lord. Catholics are only retaining what they received from their fathers and mothers from ages past when they venerate and pray to the Blessed Virgin. Catholics didn't throw out the Wisdom literature of which Barker speaks. Its in our canon of Scripture. Maybe this is partly why Luther didn't like it? Besides purgatory, you have all these overt and symbolic references to Mary in which we are admonished to "explain" her who is the prophesied personification of wisdom and in whom is "all grace of the way and the truth".

I'll close with a reading selection from the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin. August 22 is the date for this feast but the readings are often used for Masses of the Blessed Virgin on Saturdays too:

As the vine I have brought forth a pleasant odour: and my flowers are the fruit of honour and riches. I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue. Come over to me, all ye that desire me, and be filled with my fruits. For my spirit is sweet above honey, and my inheritance above honey and the honeycomb. My memory is unto everlasting generations. They that eat me, shall yet hunger: and they that drink me, shall yet thirst. He that hearkeneth to me, shall not be confounded: and they that work by me, shall not sin. They that explain me shall have life everlasting.

---Ecclesiasticus 24:23-31

3DOP

Edited PS: I cannot understand why the program has made the quote from Margaret Barker so difficult. I compressed the sentences and they appear on my edit page like any other text. Oh well.

[LeSellers]

I'm not sure how criticisms of Catholic theological matters are on topic for this message board.

Since we are accused (with little or no basis) of denying the virginity of Mary and Catholics (with barely any more) are accused of worshiping her, and since Catholics are now altering their official English-language scripture, the connection, although a bit tenuous, is there: what position does Mary hold and what was her status vis-á-vis virginity and how does that affect the divinity of Jesus Christ?

As far as I can tell, for us Saints, her virginity served only one purpose (known only to Joseph): to prove that He was in fact the literal Son of God. Catholics, holding her in a different class, see her status more broadly. I believe they see her as the "Queen of Heaven", but I am unsure what that means. It is certainly more "powerful" than "a chosen vessel".

Lehi

[Mike Reed]

Here is a blog post on Hieros Gamos--The Problem of Virginal Conception.

[saemo]

Here is a blog post on Hieros Gamos--The Problem of Virginal Conception.

This particular blog post is nothing more than a rehash of Protestant arguments against the doctrines of Mary being Ever Virgin. Only with the added Mormon twist of trying ever so hard to find a way to present a physical union between God and Mary.

No one of the true Catholic faith has or will ever believe this.

[Corvus]

Doesn't Matt 1:25 state "And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus". Speaking as a former Catholic (and now mostly agnostic) it seems to spell out pretty clearly two things.

1. That Joseph and Mary waited until after Jesus was born to consumate their marriage.

2. That Jesus was Mary and Joseph's firstborn, which would indicate that they had other children together.

Besides, aren't there other versus in the NT that refer to brothers and sisters of Jesus? I don't think God, who loves us and wants us to have families, would deny that joy to the man who married and took care of Mary and her son, when he had every right to disown them.

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

Mormon theology is that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus her son. What we don't know is exactly how that conception took place.

[3DOP]

Doesn't Matt 1:25 state "And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus". Speaking as a former Catholic (and now mostly agnostic) it seems to spell out pretty clearly two things.

1. That Joseph and Mary waited until after Jesus was born to consumate their marriage.

2. That Jesus was Mary and Joseph's firstborn, which would indicate that they had other children together.

Besides, aren't there other versus in the NT that refer to brothers and sisters of Jesus? I don't think God, who loves us and wants us to have families, would deny that joy to the man who married and took care of Mary and her son, when he had every right to disown them.

The Catholic Church has always taught that Mary was "ever virgin". There is no way that this passage of Scripture is going to overthrow 2,000 years of Tradition. The Holy Mass makes four clear references to Mary's perpetual virginity in the Confiteor, the Suscipe, and the Communicantes.

I confess to almighty God, to the blessed Mary ever Virgin...Receive, O holy Trinity, this oblation which we make to Thee, in memory of the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honor of Blessed Mary, ever Virgin...Communicating with, and honoring in the first place the memory of the glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ...

It isn't like the Catholic Church has never read Mt 1:25. The Catholic Church was from the beginning unwilling to infer from this passage that Mary had subsequent children. This Gospel is emphasizing the present virginity, not the future maternity. The words translated "until" or "till" are used in a similar way throughout Holy Scripture without inferring anything about the future. There is this raven that Noah let loose out of the Ark during the flood that did not return "till the waters were dried up on the earth". It doesn't mean that the raven returned after the flood receded. Why would it do that? But using this inference from the word "till", you have to assume that the raven came back to the ark even after the floods were dried. But a consistent use of the inference has greater problems than this. I won't go through all of them but the biggest one is in regard to Jesus on the throne of His Father:

The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool?

---Mt. 22:44

Should we infer from this that Jesus gets kicked out of the place at the right hand after God's enemies are vanquished? Of course not. Catholics are always leary (and wisely so in my opinion) of believing that any particular Scripture clearly teaches anything, and especially when it doesn't reconcile with received Traditional teachings of the Church. I don't even think the Scripture clearly teaches Catholic doctrine. The divisions among Christians spring naturally and inevitably from the unwarranted assumption that the words of Scripture clearly and unambiguously teach a particular interpretation. Doctrinal unity is impossible where there is a belief in what is called perspecuity, the supposedly clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture, exists. But tecause of Catholic Tradition, Catholics can be united about certain things that divide other Christians who have a Bible, but little or no history, and who make the grave mistake of rejecting Tradition as an interpreter. Regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary there is no doubt what the Catholic Church has taught. There is nothing original in what I have presented in argument. It goes back to St. Jerome, and from whom he learned it is lost, but it clearly wasn't his innovation. There isn't any reason for us or him to teach it except that it is something that we are committed to teaching because as you rightly point out, the passage is susceptible to the inference of more children, but I think it has been demonstrated that we cannot assume the inference to be of necessity. The Gospel writer was concentrating on the present when he spoke of time frame. Mary was virgin and Joseph never "knew her", till she brought forth her firstborn son. That is totally compatible with Catholic Tradition.

That brings us to your second reason for inferring future children. The mention of the firstborn. This is more easily answered. "The firstborn" is significant because the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; "Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc." Ex. 13. 2. Because of the covenantal significance, the firstborn were so designated in Israel before any other children were born, and continued to be even if other children were never born.

The final objection, that the blessing of ordinary marital relations and children is a consolation that God would not deny Joseph this joy. But it seems possible that God consoled Joseph in many other ways, not the least of which was to visit him frequently in mystical dreams and visions which could not have failed to give a delight in having the special duty of standing as Protector and Provider of God's only Son and His Blessed Mother. Clearly, it is at least possible that Joseph was the recipient of many graces that God would not fail to provide in order to help him persevere in this signal duty. He was the first to whom the prophecy of Isaias began to be operative:

And let not the son of the stranger, that adhereth to the Lord, speak, saying: The Lord will divide and separate me from his people. And let not the eunuch say: Behold I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs, They that shall keep my sabbaths, and shall choose the things that please me, and shall hold fast my covenant: I will give to them in my house, and within my walls, a place, and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name which shall never perish.

---Is. 56:3-5

God had revealed to the Prophet Isaias of a time that would come when those who were childless would no longer feel forlorn in their fruitlessness. St. Joseph was the prototype of those happy celibate saints who have been the martyrs, doctors, priests, and prelates of Holy Mother Church, notwithstanding the elevation of the sanctified office of Holy Matrimony to one of the seven Sacraments.

Happy Easter! And thanks for your consideration.

3DOP

[saemo]

saemo:

Mormon theology is that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus her son. What we don't know is exactly how that conception took place.

Yes I know this. However, it is valid for a Mormon to speculate on a physical union.

Such speculation is not valid for any Catholic, for many reasons, but the first being that Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is clearly taught doctrine which doesn't have any room at all for speculating of gods copulating with humans. That is where the blog I was commenting about had gone to and what I was replying to.

Other reasons this sort of speculation is not valid is that Jesus was, is, has always been and always will be fully God, not a demigod.

The Father is Spirit.

God would not have a sexual union with one of His Creation. That idea is something worse than incest.

To be very clear, Catholic doctrine clearly teaches that 'Jesus was conceived "by the Holy Spirit without human seed"' (Catechism of the Catholic Church,496)

[Nathair/|\]

Yes I know this. However, it is valid for a Mormon to speculate on a physical union.

Such speculation is not valid for any Catholic, for many reasons, but the first being that Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is clearly taught doctrine which doesn't have any room at all for speculating of gods copulating with humans. That is where the blog I was commenting about had gone to and what I was replying to.

Other reasons this sort of speculation is not valid is that Jesus was, is, has always been and always will be fully God, not a demigod.

The Father is Spirit.

God would not have a sexual union with one of His Creation. That idea is something worse than incest.

To be very clear, Catholic doctrine clearly teaches that 'Jesus was conceived "by the Holy Spirit without human seed"' (Catechism of the Catholic Church,496)

I don't see any grounds in LDS doctrine for a sexual union either, for many of the same reasons (though not all--you are a spirit, too) as above. My best guess is that the process by which the son of Mary received 26 of Heavenly Father's Chromosomes is analogous to the changing of water into wine at Cana.

[3DOP]

I wanted to comment further on what Margaret Barker had to say making the connection between Old Testament imagery and the Litany of our Lady. In particular, her title "Ark of the Covenant". I have done a little research and discovered not only the liturgical and traditional basis, but the biblical foundation for viewing the Blessed Mother in this way.

The remarkable parallels are found here: http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Mary%20the%20Ark%20of%20the%20New%20Covenant.htm

Anyone interested in Barker's article on this subject should really take a peek at the link I have provided. I won't reproduce the Agape Bible study here. I had never seen this before, but it is very compelling. A significant factor that the website doesn't mention is how the Ark was not to be touched. Wasn't it someone named Uzzah who tried to steady the Ark when a mule stumbled or something and was struck dead? This was difficult to understand and assuredly Catholics need to be sympathetic to non-Catholics who find it difficult to fathom why Joseph would refrain from his joyful rights as a husband. As alluded to above, Catholics believe that God gave St. Joseph many other ample consolations in this special circumstance that compensated for this loss. Catholics cannot believe that the marriage of Joseph and Mary was in every way ordinary. Rather the Holy Family was in every way, extraordinary, and in many respects they are imitable. But if Mary was pre-figured by the Ark of the Covenant, it follows that she was treated with a reverence and dignity that seems to exceed what even devout believers might consider to be natural:

And when they came to the floor of Nachon, Oza put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it: because the oxen kicked and made it lean aside. And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Oza, and he struck him for his rashness: and he died there before the ark of God. And David was grieved because the Lord had struck Oza, and the name of that place was called: The striking of Oza, to this day. And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?

---2 Kings (Samuel) 6:6-9

If it doesn't seem reasonable that St. Joseph refrained from marital relations, I would respond that it also doesn't seem reasonable that Uzzah was stricken dead for touching the Ark. But there you have it. King David was baffled about it. Not everything that seems reasonable to most people is what God wants and in particular is this true with the the Ark of the Covenant, the Blessed Virgin Mary, ora pro nobis.

3DOP

[RBoylan]

On the perpetual virginity of Mary:

It is not a 2000 year old tradition. It does not appear in Ignatius, for instance. It first appears in gnostic literature and eventually was accepted by the Church as an apostolic tradition (though it did not develop and take as long for it to become accepted as did the Immaculate Conception or Bodily Assumption).

The word "until" in Matthew 22 is not the same as that in Matthew 1. Matthew 22 uses εως αν *ews an* while Matthew 1:25 uses εως ου *ews ou*. The former is usually used in eschatological contexts, such as Psalm 110 in the Septuagint, and often allows for a continuation of the main clause of a sentence. However, over 80% of the instances of *ews ou* being used in the LXX and Greek NT result in the negation of the main clause of the sentence; had Matthew wanted to show a continuation of Mary's virginity, he would not have used *ews ou* but *ews an*. The other instances of *ews ou* in Matthew always result in a negation (five others).

Matthew also uses the verb συνέρχομαι *sunerchomai* which is a euphemism for "sexual intercourse." True, it means "to come together," but in the context, it clearly has the meaning of "sexual union" (similar to its Hebrew equivalent, *yada*).

While in the LXX, αδελφος *adelphos* ("brother") would be used for non-uterine brothers (e.g., near kinsmen), there is no unequivocal instance of *adelphos* and *adelphe* (sisterly) being used for anything but a uterine brother or sister (outside the spiritual use of the term, like "brother in the Lord"). While John 19:25 is often cited, early and modern interpreters understood there to be four women, not three, at the cross (1. Mary; 2. her sister; 3. Mary, wife of Clopas and 4. Mary Madelene). For instance, the Peshitta differentiates between the sister of Mary and Mary of Clopas (Catholic apologists often approach the text as if Mary of Clopas is presented as the sister of Mary, mother of Jesus, thus showing that "sister" can be used in the Greek NT to denote a non-uterine brother or sister).

There are other words to denote a cousin/near-kinsman, such as συγγενίς sungenis and ἀνεψιός anepsios. Both terms are used for such in the Greek New Testament, such as Luke 1:36 and Colossians 4:10.

Trying to use Isaiah 56 to support Mary's perpetual virginity is nothing short of eisegesis; such approaches to texts are akin to the common LDS appeal to Ezekiel 37 to "prove" the Book of Mormon. Without an a priori assumption of Mary's perpetual virginity, such would never be used in such a manner.

I do, however, agree that the "firstborn" argument is not a good argument against Mary's perpetual virginity.

[3DOP]

On the perpetual virginity of Mary:

It is not a 2000 year old tradition. It does not appear in Ignatius, for instance. It first appears in gnostic literature and eventually was accepted by the Church as an apostolic tradition (though it did not develop and take as long for it to become accepted as did the Immaculate Conception or Bodily Assumption).

The word "until" in Matthew 22 is not the same as that in Matthew 1. Matthew 22 uses εως αν *ews an* while Matthew 1:25 uses εως ου *ews ou*. The former is usually used in eschatological contexts, such as Psalm 110 in the Septuagint, and often allows for a continuation of the main clause of a sentence. However, over 80% of the instances of *ews ou* being used in the LXX and Greek NT result in the negation of the main clause of the sentence; had Matthew wanted to show a continuation of Mary's virginity, he would not have used *ews ou* but *ews an*. The other instances of *ews ou* in Matthew always result in a negation (five others).

Matthew also uses the verb συνέρχομαι *sunerchomai* which is a euphemism for "sexual intercourse." True, it means "to come together," but in the context, it clearly has the meaning of "sexual union" (similar to its Hebrew equivalent, *yada*).

While in the LXX, αδελφος *adelphos* ("brother") would be used for non-uterine brothers (e.g., near kinsmen), there is no unequivocal instance of *adelphos* and *adelphe* (sisterly) being used for anything but a uterine brother or sister (outside the spiritual use of the term, like "brother in the Lord"). While John 19:25 is often cited, early and modern interpreters understood there to be four women, not three, at the cross (1. Mary; 2. her sister; 3. Mary, wife of Clopas and 4. Mary Madelene). For instance, the Peshitta differentiates between the sister of Mary and Mary of Clopas (Catholic apologists often approach the text as if Mary of Clopas is presented as the sister of Mary, mother of Jesus, thus showing that "sister" can be used in the Greek NT to denote a non-uterine brother or sister).

There are other words to denote a cousin/near-kinsman, such as συγγενίς sungenis and ἀνεψιός anepsios. Both terms are used for such in the Greek New Testament, such as Luke 1:36 and Colossians 4:10.

Trying to use Isaiah 56 to support Mary's perpetual virginity is nothing short of eisegesis; such approaches to texts are akin to the common LDS appeal to Ezekiel 37 to "prove" the Book of Mormon. Without an a priori assumption of Mary's perpetual virginity, such would never be used in such a manner.

I do, however, agree that the "firstborn" argument is not a good argument against Mary's perpetual virginity.

Hey R Boylan,

Thanks for the reply...I cannot argue with your usage of the non-English languages. But I don't really care about it either. I don't think the English demands my interpretation, nor can I believe a Greek translation demands your interpretation. I think your interpretation is plausible too. I am just confident that my interpretation is plausible. I don't believe any translation, or even the original tongue is an adequate vehicle of true doctrine apart from a second ratifying witness, Sacred Tradition. If you were Catholic, you would believe what I believe. You wouldn't be overly confident of anyone's ability to clearly and unambiguously expound any passage of Scripture that is in conflict with the Tradition of your Church.

I was not suggesting that the first extant writings which are available speak of Mary's perpetual virginity. But neither do they contradict it. Obviously there are many doctrines upon which LDS and Catholics disagree which are not discussed either way by Sts. Ignatius, Justin, or the Didache. But when the subject began to appear in the writings that are available, the Catholic Church took the side of perpetual virginity. I freely admit that I presume that Christ has preserved His Church and given the Holy Ghost to prevent Her from authoritatively teaching error, and that therefore I am very comfortable with believing that what St. Jerome taught was no innovation. Catholics had already been talking since at least the times of St. Irenaeus (late 2nd Century) of the necessity to adhere to what had been received from the earliest believers, with hints that of all places that should be considered as sources of Apostolic Tradition, Rome was pre-eminent:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

---Against Heresies 3:3:2

I don't think I know exactly what eisegesis means, but I am pretty sure it isn't a compliment. I don't doubt that I have violated some rule of interpretation that is supposed to be observed by those who presume that the Scriptures are clear and unambiguous in teaching doctrine, whether in the original or a translation. I don't fit that category, but I will clarify why I insist that regardless of the Hebrew or Septuagint, I can not fail to see that Is. 56 could possibly lend some light as to a question that was raised by a previous post.

Up to the time of Christ, we have the records of many couples who are saddened by their infertility. I can think of Samuel's mother Anna and John the Baptist's mother Elizabeth. I was not suggesting that the passage specifically confirms Mary's perpetual virginity, but that it can be interpreted as a prophecy of how virginity, and the childlessness which follows, would come to be at a later time not only acceptable, but a joyful lifestyle wherein God would console those with that calling in a manner that more than compensates for their abstinence from holy marriage. Someone had suggested that St. Joseph could not be denied the ordinary joy of marital union and it seemed proper to cite this prophecy which I thought spoke to the question of how Joseph might be able to be happy as a celibate husband to our Blessed Mother. I find it difficult to doubt that what is written in Is. 56 is compatible with a belief that the age of the New Covenant would find fulfillment in joyful celibate lives consecrated to God for a special service. I am not claiming that St. Joseph MUST be understood as inaugurating this era solely on the basis of Scripture. Without Catholic Tradition, I could plausibly believe what you apparently do.

I must admit that I see it as the height of folly to spend years of study thinking that a knowledge of multiple languages will enable the linguist to discover some clear truth found in the divinely inspired, but still human words of Sacred Scripture, that isn't susceptible to a variety of equally plausible interpretations. I'm not against learning. But it can't be that it is for academics to decide what is right. I could never believe that God would make me choose between this or that exponent of Greek and Hebrew while they are as much at odds with each other as the rest of us who have to be content to use a common vernacular. I choose Tradition over the Academy as the necessary second witness and interpreter of Sacred Scripture.

I couldn't speak to Mormon usage of Ezekiel 37, but I am sure I would find it plausible, as I do virtually every LDS doctrine considered solely on the basis of Scripture.

3DOP

[Mike Reed]

This particular blog post is nothing more than a rehash of Protestant arguments against the doctrines of Mary being Ever Virgin.

I am surprised that you think this. I try to make a point of posting new material in each of my blog entries. So who has argued the same?

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

Sure LDS are as free as anyone to "speculate" on anything they want. That hardly makes for doctrine though.

[saemo]

saemo:

Sure LDS are as free as anyone to "speculate" on anything they want. That hardly makes for doctrine though.

As I understand it, Mormons can accept a physical union as valid, even if it isn't doctrine. ie, it is OK for a Mormon to believe this. (The teaching originates from LDS leaders.)

It is not OK for a Catholic to believe that a physical union occurred between God the Father and Mary. By far the majority of Catholics have never heard of the idea and would consider it repulsive!

[LeSellers]

It is not OK for a Catholic to believe that a physical union occurred between God the Father and Mary. By far the majority of Catholics have never heard of the idea and would consider it repulsive!

Why? one is forced to wonder.

Lehi

[saemo]

Why? one is forced to wonder.

Lehi

It is the fact one would have to wonder this at all, that defines our differences.

[LeSellers]

It is the fact one would have to wonder this at all, that defines our differences.

So, if you won't answer the question, just say so.

When God created the earth, the Bible tells us that He saw various stages of His creation and pronounced them "Good". However, when He created woman, and gave Adam and Eve the commandment to "multiply and replenish the Earth, it was "very good".

'Twould seem you have something against reproduction. "Physical union" is not a four-letter word.

Lehi

[Vance]

saemo:

Mormon theology is that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus her son. What we don't know is exactly how that conception took place.

Other than, it WAS miraculous, of course.

[3DOP]

Changed my mind about a post...

3DOP

[saemo]

So, if you won't answer the question, just say so.

When God created the earth, the Bible tells us that He saw various stages of His creation and pronounced them "Good". However, when He created woman, and gave Adam and Eve the commandment to "multiply and replenish the Earth, it was "very good".

'Twould seem you have something against reproduction. "Physical union" is not a four-letter word.

Lehi

Being a wife and a mother, I have nothing against reproduction, but thanks for assuming.

[LeSellers]

Being a wife and a mother, I have nothing against reproduction, but thanks for assuming.

Actually, I assumed nothing.

It seems you will not (or cannot) answer the question.

It has long been a puzzle to me as to why so many people think that a "physical union" between Father and Mary would be "repulsive". There's nothing wrong with it, assuming it happened (which is not my assumption, btw).

Lehi

[Calm]

Actually, I assumed nothing.

It seems you will not (or cannot) answer the question.

It has long been a puzzle to me as to why so many people think that a "physical union" between Father and Mary would be "repulsive". There's nothing wrong with it, assuming it happened (which is not my assumption, btw).

Lehi

I think it's pretty obvious myself that it is not necessarily the physical act itself that many are uncomfortable about but rather the issue is the relationship between the Father and Mary. Some would see it as essentially incestuous (between a father and his daughter if one believes Mary is a spirit child/creation of God) or that it portrays God as having created Mary for his physical pleasure or one of inequality something similar to a physical relationship between a owner and his slaves and others who see the difference between the Divine and humanity being unbridgeable and God being so far and incomprehensible beyond the knowledge of man that it would be something equivalent to a man having a physical relationship with an animal.

There are some who have expressed a distaste for applying anything of a physical nature to God the Father who they see as pure spirit and they seem to see spirit as being a higher purer form of existence and to attribute physical qualities to God is demeaning in and of itself, but it is the physicality of the act, not the act itself that is the problem.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Who cares if Joseph fathered the Master or He was conceived by other means?

I can't say it's any of my business.

Would blow a big hole in Isaiah’s prophesies and the NT. As such it would mean that Christ is not the Son of God and just another great man. It is what it says or we all hope in vain…which I am leaning toward more everyday. I stopped by my father’s grave Sunday, and was overcome with the feeling that I will never see him again. If I lose that hope…I lose all. Of course I think that ship has already sailed.

[USU78]

Would blow a big hole in Isaiah’s prophesies and the NT. As such it would mean that Christ is not the Son of God and just another great man. It is what it says or we all hope in vain…which I am leaning toward more everyday. I stopped by my father’s grave Sunday, and was overcome with the feeling that I will never see him again. If I lose that hope…I lose all. Of course I think that ship has already sailed.

In a day where artificial insemination has been wrought upon man and beast for decades, I can't see why this is either problematic practically or does damage to any prophecy.

I just don't much care about the mechanics and cannot understand why people debate the issue or wonder about Kate Middleton's dress size.