Jesus is here thanks to no man

[tessamami]

Let's discuss the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin - no man involved! Let the talking amongst ourselves begin.

[Cassandra M.]

What about that female whale that was in solitary confinement for a long time and ended up reproducing an exact replica of herself?
Of course, Jesus wasn't a Mary, so I don't believe it.

[Viola]

So is this a religious discussion, an historical one or a mix of both?

[Journey]

I have a question? The Messiah was supposed to be a decendant of King David, correct? Joseph was a decendant of David, not Mary. Therefore, wouldn't it have to be Joseph's seed in Mary's womb?

We are all children of God. I don't think Jesus was God's biological child, as in Joseph's sperm had nothing to do with it.

[Irishmommy]

Moving this to Spirituality...

[dado]

Originally posted by Journey
I have a question? The Messiah was supposed to be a decendant of King David, correct? Joseph was a decendant of David, not Mary. Therefore, wouldn't it have to be Joseph's seed in Mary's womb?

it wouldn't do any good even if Joseph was involved in the conception because the lineage presented in Matthew goes through Jehoiakim and that line had been disqualified from kingship by G-d himself.

[Free Thinker]

Do you want to discuss the actual concept of having Virgin born saviors (ie: Mithra, Krishna, Jesus) or just Jesus? There is a trend of "virgin born" saviors in ancient religions. If you wish to only discuss Jesus and Christianity, then I apoligize for my post, and will not intrude.

[pammysue]

Here is an intersting discussion of the questions posted above about Mary being in the line of David and Joesph also being in the line of David through Jehoiakim. I would post an excerpt here, but I could not find one that would make sense w/o all of the background information, but it is not very long.

link

[Journey]

Wow! Thank you very much for that link!

[dado]

in the end we all believe what we need to believe. that said, Nathan's line, too, is disqualified. the incident from Numbers isn't relevant because it references only property, not lineage.

but again, belief is a personal thing.

[DaryLLL]

What makes most sense to me is that the nativity scene in Matthew and Luke was written quite a while after the Jewish cult of Xtianity had gotten its start. You can watch the progress of theories about Christ by reading the letters of Paul (the authentic ones) and the 4 gospels. I disregard the pastoral tracts' opinions about Christ as mere polemics, quite political in nature. Kind of snarky.

Paul thought Jesus was given power by God at the resurrection (as are we). Paul's Christ was not a historical figure but an indwelling spirit.

Mark, the next earliest writing we have in the canon, thought Jesus was given power by God (did not become God), at his baptism. Which helps explain why Jesus would even need to be baptized.

Matthew and Luke adopted the pagan virgin birth narrative from Greek tradition. The differing geneologies represent the differing Jewish and Greek mystery religion schools of thought. Their embarrassment at the baptism question is evident.

Only John, the latest gospel with the highest Christology, thought Christ as the Logos (word) was with God from before creation, was the spirit moving over the waters. I believe Jews think this co-creator was the Shekhina however (sometimes thought of as a female named Wisdom). John does not have Jesus bother with the baptism at all. In facxt, there is confusion as to who is the Christ (Messiah), Ioannes (John) or Ioesous (Jesus). The book, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man delves deeply into the John/Jesus linkage and battle for power amongst early CE Messiah cults. Facscinating window onto history.

Jesus was voted in as God, part of the trinity, at the council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Those Chrisitan bishops that objected were asked to leave the council. Their objecting letters are still extant.

I can't imagine what other forum this thread started in!

[DaryLLL]

Emphasis on Pauls' authentic letters, NM, not the later forged ones, not the Acts of the Apostles.

Nothing literalist in my post. Don't even try to understand, as it is way outside your comfort zone/system of belief you have chosen, I think.

[tessamami]

I am much more interested in the role of women in religion. I sometimes imagine a world where men have no concept of "sperm" and women are honored for giving life. Discussions of krishna, etc. are welcome by me.

If we accept the concept of virgin birth, what does that say about women, and men?

[dado]

that's a good question. given that we now have the technology to fertilze one egg with another - skipping the sperm entirely - what does that say about the concept of virgin birth all 'round?

[Very Snoofly]

Not sure exactly where this fits in...but I just recently learned that when Catholics refer to the "Immaculate Conception," they are in fact referring to their belief that Mary herself was conceived without the taint of original sin, not to the conception of Jesus.

This was fairly mind-boggling to me. My Protestant upbringing had taught me that Mary was an ordinary girl who was chosen by God to bear Jesus, and who in turn chose to accept God's "will" for her.

I understand--or I think I do--that the "Immaculate Conception" doctrine is supposed to indicate how far-reaching God's plan was; that he freed Mary from the taint of original sin so that he would have a "perfect vessel" in which to carry his son.

However, it strikes me as being somewhat misogynistic...that the Church chose to bestow this "immaculate" designation on Mary because it just wouldn't do to believe that an "ordinary" woman was good enough to be Jesus's biological mother.

Am I way off base for thinking so? (Or for posting that opinion...this is my first post in this forum so if I'm on shaky ground just say so!)

[dado]

the concept of original sin has no basis in Judaism, so i'm going to avoid the hornet's nest you just kicked entirely.

[Sean]

Very Snoofly: I love your user name. What's "Snoofly" mean?

Far from being off-base, you have fairly and truly summarized the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, as well as its theological underpinnings. Whether it's at all "misogynistic" to suppose that an ordinary, original sin-stained human is unworthy to bear God, would be the only point of disagreement. I say it isn't, but I don't like hornets any more than Dado does, so I'll bow out.

Dado: It occurs to me that if you don't believe in original sin, then you ipso facto must believe that Mary was conceived without it. Just thought it might please you to know that we agree on something.

[dado]

Originally posted by Sean
you...must believe that Mary was conceived without it [original sin].

you bet! as are we all.

[Very Snoofly]

Originally posted by dado
the concept of original sin has no basis in Judaism, so i'm going to avoid the hornet's nest you just kicked entirely.

I should've added that I don't much like the idea of original sin myself, whether for mere mortals or the mother of God. In fact that kind of crystallizes why the doctrine bothers me...that Mary had to have some kind of grand intercession to be born "pure"...whereas I like to believe that we're ALL born that way.


PS Sean, I borrowed "very snoofly" from a song called "Nobody Understands Me" on Sandra Boynton's "Philadelphia Chickens" album (my daughter's favorite). Nobody understands the singer because she mostly talks gibberish..."it's very snoofly," she laments at one point. It struck me as funny.

[barbara]

Re: Jesus is here thanks to no man

This is an interesting discussion, I love hearing about other's beliefs (or non-beliefs, as the case may be. )

in reply to the op...

Originally posted by tessamami
Let's discuss the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin - no man involved! Let the talking amongst ourselves begin.

I was thinking about the term "no man involved." Now assuming the belief that Mary was a virgin (which I do) then one could say no man's sperm was involved, thus making this a miricale. However I think saying "no man involved" is perhaps misleding. This was a very patriarchal society that she was living in. Men were very much involved in just about every aspect of her life. Her father was probably the one who had arranged her betrothal to Joseph and her future was dependent on Joseph's grace and love toward her. In hind sight it is easy to see that God was in control of the situation, but who knows what may have seemed like to her. How much can one's faith sustain when the circumstances surrounding conception are called into question in a society where a young woman's life is directed by the Men in her life.

Perhaps a tangent, but I thought it relevent to the discussion of the involvement of men in a women's life.