The Virginity of Mary

[David T]

Would blow a big hole in Isaiah’s prophesies

No it wouldn't, if Isaiah didn't have this in mind, and was actually speaking of an event in his own time.

As such it would mean that Christ is not the Son of God

I'm pretty sure both you and I were not born of virgins, yet I affirm that we are both Sons of God.

It is what it says or we all hope in vain

Where in the scriptures is the Virgin Birth tied to Salvation? Paul used the 'or we all hope in vain' language to refer to the Resurrection, not the virgin birth. He never speaks of or even alludes to the Virgin birth (nobody does, except for the author of Matthew and Luke). Mark and John and Paul understood and affirmed Jesus to be the Son of God without making any reference to any Virgin Birth.

And I agree that if there is no life after death, then the Christian hope is in vain.

But if the Virgin Birth Narratives were simply added to bolster up and narratively explain aspects of Christ's divinity and divine status, that wouldn't effect anything for me. All it would effect are the unnecessary and somewhat silly 'explanations' that say that Jesus was able to Resurrect himself and exercise miracles because half of his DNA was Exalted God DNA.

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

The LDS have established doctrine that Mary was a virgin. That is what the Church officially teaches. Any one can "speculate" all they want.

IE If my non LDS Grandmother believed the moon was made of green cheese, and publicly said so. That would hardly make it the doctrine of her church.

IE If Some Catholic believed the earth is the center of the universe. Would that make it Catholic doctrine for all time?

[saemo]

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

That is why I cannot answer. How do you say to a person there is something wrong at a very base level and they tell you they can't see it? It is like trying to describe color to the blind.

But, I think Calmoriah did a fairly good job, other than, we don't view God as an animal.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm pretty sure both you and I were not born of virgins, yet I affirm that we are both Sons of God.

Where in the scriptures is the Virgin Birth tied to Salvation? Paul used the 'or we all hope in vain' language to refer to the Resurrection, not the virgin birth. He never speaks of or even alludes to the Virgin birth (nobody does, except for the author of Matthew and Luke). Mark and John and Paul understood and affirmed Jesus to be the Son of God without making any reference to any Virgin Birth.

If every belief we have anymore is only allegories then it is all based in fables. Either that our we have all lost the ability to have child-like faith and have the need to put everything in scientific terms…thus putting our trust in the arm of flesh. If Mary was impregnated by Joseph before marriage, then the entire narrative is a farce.

Besides I have three granddaughters by my daughter, and my rule is “No marriage until you are 35, and sex until I’m dead”. So they must have been virgin births, otherwise my son-in-law is in big trouble.

[saemo]

saemo:

The LDS have established doctrine that Mary was a virgin. That is what the Church officially teaches. Any one can "speculate" all they want.

IE If my non LDS Grandmother believed the moon was made of green cheese, and publicly said so. That would hardly make it the doctrine of her church.

IE If Some Catholic believed the earth is the center of the universe. Would that make it Catholic doctrine for all time?

Thanks for the analogies. But, like all analogies they fall short.

First is, the Catholic Church has never declared as doctrine that the earth is the center of the universe.

But I get your point. Your Church has no doctrine regarding the virginity of Mary, not in the sense of defining what virginity is.

For Catholic virginity is more than a description of never having a sexual relationship, it is a state that one chooses to live. LDS don't have this concept, and as far as I can tell, are unable to understand it. Applying to this state a sense that sexual relationships are bad, which, no Catholic believes.

Also, for LDS I get the idea that virginity is seen as always something that will be, and should be, "remedied" by marriage. Rather than how we view it as living a consecrated life to God, which requires the sacrifice of oneself. This includes the sacrifices of desires that are inherently good.

It is an ancient practice. When virgins are spoken of in the Bible, we understand they are living in a permanent state of sacrifice. Not a temporary state that will be remedied by marriage.

peace

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Thanks for the analogies. But, like all analogies they fall short.

First is, the Catholic Church has never declared as doctrine that the earth is the center of the universe.

But I get your point. Your Church has no doctrine regarding the virginity of Mary, not in the sense of defining what virginity is.

For Catholic virginity is more than a description of never having a sexual relationship, it is a state that one chooses to live. LDS don't have this concept, and as far as I can tell, are unable to understand it. Applying to this state a sense that sexual relationships are bad, which, no Catholic believes.

peace

Did they not make Aristotle or Michelangelo write a retraction of their findings that the earth was not the center of the universe, as well as retractions concerning gravity? Can’ remember who it was…

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

Galileo Galilei would have been very interested in hear how the earth was not the center of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html

It is the doctrine of the Church that Mary was a virgin. That she "knew" no man until after the birth of her first son Jesus.

[saemo]

saemo:

Galileo Galilei would have been very interested in hear how the earth was not the center of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia....Galileo_Galilei

http://csep10.phys.u.../aristotle.html

It is the doctrine of the Church that Mary was a virgin. That she "knew" no man until after the birth of her first son Jesus.

Thanks, i am aware of Galileo. I can assure you, the earth being the center of the universe has never been a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It may have been strongly believed, with the belief being based on the science of the times, but it was never doctrine. I recommend the article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is doctrine, and as such, cannot be changed.

[saemo]

Did they not make Aristotle or Michelangelo write a retraction of their findings that the earth was not the center of the universe, as well as retractions concerning gravity? Can’ remember who it was…

Not a matter of doctrine though, is it? Galileo was not accepted by his own scientific community. Which had nothing to do with ecclesiastical authority, but more to do with the fact that he had not proved his thesis.

It was perceived by ecclesiastical authorities that Galileo was trying to promulgate his radical (at the time) science as doctrine. That is what got him in trouble.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Not a matter of doctrine though, is it? Galileo was not accepted by his own scientific community. Which had nothing to do with ecclesiastical authority, but more to do with the fact that he had not proved his thesis.

It was perceived by ecclesiastical authorities that Galileo was trying to promulgate his radical (at the time) science as doctrine. That is what got him in trouble.

It was not his fellow scientists who had him do a retraction. But nuff said, I am not trying to be anti-Catholic. All faiths fear anything that does not reflect their views.

Of course “fear”, “shunning” are effective tools for those who doubt, or get out of line. This type of peer pressure works very well “for a while”.

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

The Catholic Inquisition took a special interest in Galileo. It wasn't till after 400 years that the Catholic church finally forgave Galileo

http://www.zimbio.com/The+Roman+Catholic+Church/articles/432/Message+Galileo+Forgiven

That is where the LDS differ from the Catholics. We don't believe Mary was forever a virgin.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

saemo:

The Catholic Inquisition took a special interest in Galileo. It wasn't till after 400 years that the Catholic church finally forgave Galileo

http://www.zimbio.com/The+Roman+Catholic+Church/articles/432/Message+Galileo+Forgiven

That is where the LDS differ from the Catholics. We don't believe Mary was forever a virgin.

How could she be Christ had a few other siblings.

[saemo]

It was not his fellow scientists who had him do a retraction. But nuff said, I am not trying to be anti-Catholic. All faiths fear anything that does not reflect their views.

Of course “fear”, “shunning” are effective tools for those who doubt, or get out of line. This type of peer pressure works very well “for a while”.

I agree with what you are saying. However, Galileo was teaching in European universities, which at the time, were entirely Catholic because it was the Catholic Church who established them in the first place. There were no other places of higher learning. It isn't coherent at all to believe that the only scientific study being done at all was being suppressed. It just isn't the case, not with the evidence of great scientific discoveries and forward thinking was being done in Catholic universities.

Galieo's science was not being suppressed. His attempts at promulgating his science as doctrine were.

I don't think you are trying to be anti-Catholic, but you have accepted the story that is most often related. One that has roots in the anti-Catholicism of the 16th and 17th centuries.

peace

[saemo]

saemo:

The Catholic Inquisition took a special interest in Galileo. It wasn't till after 400 years that the Catholic church finally forgave Galileo

http://www.zimbio.co...alileo+Forgiven

Yes, I know. I also know how you are viewing the word "Inquisition". Which at Galileo's time was nothing more than a tribunal. The Spanish Catholic Queen and King took the tribunals to another level.

That is where the LDS differ from the Catholics. We don't believe Mary was forever a virgin.

Yes, I know. I can't see in a lot of LDS thought how it is believed she was ever a virgin. Not in terms of a consecrated life. But, that is how it is.

peace

[LeSellers]

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.

I've seen people say any such act would be "yucky". The implication being that God do not, cannot, have such physical unions, that this sort of base connection is only for us lowlifes.

Some would see it as essentially incestuous (between a father and his daughter if one believes Mary is a spirit child/creation of God)

But she was not His physical daughter.

that it portrays God as having created Mary for his physical pleasure

When, in fact, the explicit purpose would have been to create the body His Son needed to live among us mortals (among other things).

Such a thought is really reaching for a reason to be upset, as far as I can tell.

one of inequality something similar to a physical relationship between a owner and his slaves

Mary has an answer to this one: be it unto the handmaid according to thy will. She didn't see it as a problem, I can't see how any of us should.

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.

Yet this relationship produced a Man, so it's far from some sort of inter-species relationship.

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.

As I said, this is not universal, people have said they find the idea itself yucky (long ago, in a forum far, far away).

We can hear the words, but the idea remains incomprehensible: God is the Father of Jesus Christ, God, not the Holy Ghost (in spite of a poorly turned phrase in Matthew). Jesus Christ is a Man, now resurrected. He needed to be both mortal and immortal to accomplish His work of atonement, and He needed this so He could chose whether to act for us in this way (for which choice I am most grateful). The fact that the scriptures tell us that He, Jesus, is the Son of God tells us more about the conception of this Child than both short passages in Matthew or Luke.

Getting back to the issue, why anyone would find a "physical union" between God and Mary problematic, remains unanswered, although not unaddressed. The only reason I can deduce is that these people must find the act of procreation disgusting (however necessary or desirable)—a sop to our baser, animal instincts. This is, however, a direct rejection of the scripture I alluded to earlier.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Lehi

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I agree with what you are saying. However, Galileo was teaching in European universities, which at the time, were entirely Catholic because it was the Catholic Church who established them in the first place. There were no other places of higher learning. It isn't coherent at all to believe that the only scientific study being done at all was being suppressed. It just isn't the case, not with the evidence of great scientific discoveries and forward thinking was being done in Catholic universities.

Galieo's science was not being suppressed. His attempts at promulgating his science as doctrine were.

I don't think you are trying to be anti-Catholic, but you have accepted the story that is most often related. One that has roots in the anti-Catholicism of the 16th and 17th centuries.

peace

Now you are into pure apologetics, which I don’t think has much interest in hard facts.

[LeSellers]

That is why I cannot answer. How do you say to a person there is something wrong at a very base level and they tell you they can't see it? It is like trying to describe color to the blind.

I'm not blind, I just cannot figure out how this could be repulsive unless sexual intercourse itself is repulsive: God said that sex was "very good". Jesus is His Son. Children are the product of sexual union.

I think Calmoriah did a fairly good job, other than, we don't view God as an animal.

She didn't say God was an animal, but that people on your side of the argument see us as animals in comparison with God. Which still baffles me, because God chose to have His Only Begotten Son suffer and die for us animals.

God's Son was just like us: He was a Baby, a Child, and a Man. The only physical difference was His immortality, yet He died (albeit by His own choice). He was not the Son of the Holy Ghost, He was the Son of God, the Father. He says so in John 9:35~37. God's chromosomes was His chromosomes (or half of them were, anyway). From those genes, He inherited immortality; His mortality came from Mary. Both were critical to His mission.

A "physical union" between God and Mary would have resulted in this arrangement, although we mere animals can duplicate this kind of result using our limited minds and knowledge. Nonetheless, a physical union between Mary and God is not, in and of itself, repulsive, nor should it be. Christ descended below all things. Why would the Father ask His Son to do what He, Himself, was unwilling to do? Even if one assumes (without reasonable justification) that sexual union is a base act, if Christ had to suffer all things, why would God, His "mentor", not go just as far?

You might see it as "impossible", since you don't understand God's Person as being physical. We might see it as "unlikely", given that God wouldn't need to use a physical union to accomplish His aims. But such an act's being "repulsive" is simply not reasonable.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Saemo:

The Inquisition was not a mere tribunal in any modern sense of the word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

In that she "knew" no man until AFTER the birth of her first son Jesus.

[phaedrus ut]

Should Mary be considered one of Heavenly Fathers plural wives?

Phaedrus

[saemo]

Saemo:

The Inquisition was not a mere tribunal in any modern sense of the word.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Inquisition

In that she "knew" no man until AFTER the birth of her first son Jesus.

I understood you were trying to use "The Inquisition", which usually refers to the actions of the Spanish government. It was indeed a tribunal. What changed under the Spanish, over time, were the methods of inquiry by the tribunal and the punishments, which were handled by the secular authorities.

The inquisition that Galileo stood before was not that of the Spanish monarchy. He was not tortured or executed. He was tried under the government and laws of the time, which of course were Catholic.

I have to wonder how LDS reconcile this to their article of faith saying one should obey the laws of the land.

[saemo]

Now you are into pure apologetics, which I don’t think has much interest in hard facts.

I don't see a difference.

Apologetics should be based on facts.

[saemo]

I'm not blind, I just cannot figure out how this could be repulsive unless sexual intercourse itself is repulsive: God said that sex was "very good". Jesus is His Son. Children are the product of sexual union.

Yes, I know, you keep trying to tell me that I view sexual intercourse as repulsive.

She didn't say God was an animal, but that people on your side of the argument see us as animals in comparison with God. Which still baffles me, because God chose to have His Only Begotten Son suffer and die for us animals.

That is not true either. We are not animals. We are creatures, in that, we are created beings. In this we share a commonality with all of creation, including animals.

God is not created and therefore is not a creature. Therefore, He does not share a commonality of being a creature. His being is God, the Creator.

There is a distinct, and very important factor that is being denied in statements such as saying we see "us as animals". We are made in the image of God. Animals are not.

God's Son was just like us: He was a Baby, a Child, and a Man. The only physical difference was His immortality, yet He died (albeit by His own choice). He was not the Son of the Holy Ghost, He was the Son of God, the Father. He says so in John 9:35~37. God's chromosomes was His chromosomes (or half of them were, anyway). From those genes, He inherited immortality; His mortality came from Mary. Both were critical to His mission.

Jesus is fully God and fully Man, that makes Him quite different from us.

This talk of "chromosomes" is silly to a Catholic (and most Christians I'd say). God the Father does not have chromosomes. Jesus' humanity came entirely from His mother, Mary. This is Christian doctrine (not only Catholic).

A "physical union" between God and Mary would have resulted in this arrangement, although we mere animals can duplicate this kind of result using our limited minds and knowledge. Nonetheless, a physical union between Mary and God is not, in and of itself, repulsive, nor should it be.

Is it repulsive to have sexual intercourse with your own child? If not, why not? Would it be a sacrifice to "lower" yourself to such a base act, or desire? I think not!

If such an act is repulsive, take that further and comprehend your Creator having sexual desire for that which He created. As certainly, a sexual union is not going to occur without sexual attraction. Right? I hope you can see the "ew" factor in this. If not, I wouldn't know what to say to help you out. So I'll leave that topic for you to mull over.

Christ descended below all things. Why would the Father ask His Son to do what He, Himself, was unwilling to do? Even if one assumes (without reasonable justification) that sexual union is a base act, if Christ had to suffer all things, why would God, His "mentor", not go just as far?

ummm, this is so strange I don't even know how to respond to it.

You might see it as "impossible", since you don't understand God's Person as being physical. We might see it as "unlikely", given that God wouldn't need to use a physical union to accomplish His aims. But such an act's being "repulsive" is simply not reasonable.

Of course it is reasonable.

It isn't reasonable to view your Creator copulating with that which He created as "good".

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

Imprisonment in your own house for the rest of your life while not as extreme as other forms of torture is torture.

I guess the same way the Catholic church rationalized compliance with Mussolini, and the NAZIS.

http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm

[LeSellers]

Imprisonment in your own house for the rest of your life while not as extreme as other forms of torture is torture.

Please use the "Reply" button. It just isn't very hard to do. I'm as old as you are, not nearly as smart (by your account), and manage it pretty well. No one knows what you're talking about.

It is torture, too, to be constrained from telling other what you have discovered and know to be true. Having a Cardinal refuse to even look through a telescope and observe the features of the Moon (as I recall the incident from my biography of Galileo), to be put in a sort of scientific Limbo, and have your books burnt would be a psychological torture for a brilliant man. He built on the works of others, and it is the nature of science to expect others to advance yours, as well.

Lehi

[saemo]

saemo:

Imprisonment in your own house for the rest of your life while not as extreme as other forms of torture is torture.

I guess the same way the Catholic church rationalized compliance with Mussolini, and the NAZIS.

http://emperors-clot...atican/cpix.htm

lol. Are you going through a list of Catholic offenses or what?

There is a reason that Pope John Paul II apologized on behalf of the Catholic Church. Do we apologize for what has been rationalized as good?

I am not rationalizing away difficult history. Neither am I accepting the Protestant Reformation version of Catholic History. I find it fascinating, even fun, to poke in deeper and get a sense of the times, so to speak.

It appears to me that LDS have this overwhelming need to view all Catholic history as horribly bad, while ignoring its context (which of course is not entirely good), and ignoring history itself. I'm sorry if I don't participate in this with you. For every bad Catholic there are hundreds more who are good, even Saintly.

LDS seem to be unable to forgive those who ask for forgiveness, and unable to look on the Faith of Christ's Church. Always focusing on the sins. This is a gloomy, hopeless view.

Our hope is in Jesus Christ, not in the government of ended monarchies, or the faults of humans.

Have a good day!