Virgin Mary

[alexdocherty]

If the story of virgin Mary baring God's child is true: is it really ethical that God gave her a baby, without her consent?
Just wanted to see some people's thoughts on this...

[ravenssong]

If the story of virgin Mary baring God's child is true: is it really ethical that God gave her a baby, without her consent?
Just wanted to see some people's thoughts on this...

Mary was a temple virgin, according to catholic lore she was raised in the Jewish temple, they didn't employ temple virgins in the same manner as the Greeks and Romans bet I bet she was still prettier than the alter boys. Anyway, the priests set her up with Joseph, when she was 12 "so that she would not stain the temple" (these same men sacrificed animals in the Temple all day long but a little menstrual blood would stain?), before they even get married she has this vision from God that she is pregnant with God's seed, One could only wonder if her menses was really the need to find her a husband or if a lack of menses was the cause for concern? Was her child "God's" or a priest's, it would be hard for a 12 year old to differentiate between God and God's servant (the priests)

Divine rape? no, once again God gets blamed for something man most likely perpetrates.

[Goat]

If the story of virgin Mary baring God's child is true: is it really ethical that God gave her a baby, without her consent?
Just wanted to see some people's thoughts on this...

Mary was a temple virgin, according to catholic lore she was raised in the Jewish temple, they didn't employ temple virgins in the same manner as the Greeks and Romans bet I bet she was still prettier than the alter boys. Anyway, the priests set her up with Joseph, when she was 12 "so that she would not stain the temple" (these same men sacrificed animals in the Temple all day long but a little menstrual blood would stain?), before they even get married she has this vision from God that she is pregnant with God's seed, One could only wonder if her menses was really the need to find her a husband or if a lack of menses was the cause for concern? Was her child "God's" or a priest's, it would be hard for a 12 year old to differentiate between God and God's servant (the priests)

Divine rape? no, once again God gets blamed for something man most likely perpetrates.

Well, that rumor is incorrect. Judaism did not have temple virgins.

[Greatest I Am]

God + woman = abomination.


Not to shatter your faith in the WORD but consider.

God as a species and man as a different species.

Usually, entities reproduce with their own kind.

God with Wogod is then OK.

Man with woman is then OK.

God with woman is then. Not OK .

Man with Wogod is then Not OK.

There are lower species as well to us as we are to God.

God would not set a precedent that says it is OK to reproduce with a lower species. If He did, it would open the door for man and our meat.

Consider also, the trinity.

Simply said, if Jesus was in the beginning then He was before his mother was and he would not go forward in time to somehow impregnate his own mother. Such takes paradox too far.

God is a full God. Not a chimera. To say that Jesus is somehow part of God is to insult both man and God.
He has the same position of highs and lows as we all get in heaven. Heaven is communistic demographic shape and no one shares 1st place with God the father.

God does not reproduce out of wedlock. He does not break His own laws.

God + woman = abomination.


Regards
DL

[ravenssong]

Well, that rumor is incorrect. Judaism did not have temple virgins.

excerpted fromhttp://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
"To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion)."

my mistake.... sorry.

[Goat]

Well, that rumor is incorrect. Judaism did not have temple virgins.

excerpted fromhttp://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
"To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion)."

my mistake.... sorry.

That doesn't even make sense either. They didn't have 'devoted service to the lord' at the temple. There were some sects that provided that, but not at the temple (the essences for example). You will not find a Jewish source about that sort of stuff.

[ravenssong]

Well, that rumor is incorrect. Judaism did not have temple virgins.

excerpted fromhttp://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
"To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion)."

my mistake.... sorry.

That doesn't even make sense either. They didn't have 'devoted service to the lord' at the temple. There were some sects that provided that, but not at the temple (the essences for example). You will not find a Jewish source about that sort of stuff.

1 Samuel 2:22
"22 Now Eli was very old; and he heard everything his sons did to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. "

This (originally Jewish and accepted Christian) passage seems to indicate that women were indeed present in the temple and also vulnerable to the wiles of the clergy.

I'm not saying Mary was a temple prostitute that concept was abhorrent to early Jewish culture. I'm saying she was a young child entrusted to the temple to be a virgin and as such it is probably more likely she was exploited by her caretakers that visited by an angel and impregnated by divine seed.

[Goat]

Well, that rumor is incorrect. Judaism did not have temple virgins.

excerpted fromhttp://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
"To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion)."

my mistake.... sorry.

That doesn't even make sense either. They didn't have 'devoted service to the lord' at the temple. There were some sects that provided that, but not at the temple (the essences for example). You will not find a Jewish source about that sort of stuff.

1 Samuel 2:22
"22 Now Eli was very old; and he heard everything his sons did to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. "

This (originally Jewish and accepted Christian) passage seems to indicate that women were indeed present in the temple and also vulnerable to the wiles of the clergy.

I'm not saying Mary was a temple prostitute that concept was abhorrent to early Jewish culture. I'm saying she was a young child entrusted to the temple to be a virgin and as such it is probably more likely she was exploited by her caretakers that visited by an angel and impregnated by divine seed.

But what you quote has nothing to do with the temple , and there were no 'children' with the temple. .. so sorry, but you are talking about things that just didn't happen in the jewish culture at that time.

Now, if read what 1 samuel is talking about in context , it is discussing how the son's of eli abused their power, and how they did not escape punishment for their misdeeds. Now, I will point out that this particular passage did not occur in the Dead sea scrolls, but DID occur in the masoric text, which was several hunderd years younger

The basic message of the passage is that those leaders who abuse their office and exploit their people will not have their deeds go unpunished.

[ravenssong]

But what you quote has nothing to do with the temple , and there were no 'children' with the temple. .. so sorry, but you are talking about things that just didn't happen in the Jewish culture at that time.

was the "tabernacle of the meeting" not the temple? (I don't know, that's why I'm asking)

What do you mean there were no "children of the temple"? what about Samuel?, I thought it was common practice at that time to promise God your firstborn in exchange for answering a prayer? kinda like sending your kids to catholic boarding school now.

Now, if read what 1 Samuel is talking about in context , it is discussing how the son's of eli abused their power, and how they did not escape punishment for their misdeeds.

It provides a compelling precedent.

Now, I will point out that this particular passage did not occur in the Dead sea scrolls, but DID occur in the masoric text, which was several hunderd years younger

Does that mean it is or is not a valid resource on Judaism at that time?

The basic message of the passage is that those leaders who abuse their office and exploit their people will not have their deeds go unpunished.

Unless of course they can conceal them by say a divine vision and pregnancy.

[Goat]

But what you quote has nothing to do with the temple , and there were no 'children' with the temple. .. so sorry, but you are talking about things that just didn't happen in the Jewish culture at that time.

was the "tabernacle of the meeting" not the temple? (I don't know, that's why I'm asking)

What do you mean there were no "children of the temple"? what about Samuel?, I thought it was common practice at that time to promise God your firstborn in exchange for answering a prayer? kinda like sending your kids to catholic boarding school now.

Now, if read what 1 Samuel is talking about in context , it is discussing how the son's of eli abused their power, and how they did not escape punishment for their misdeeds.

It provides a compelling precedent.

Now, I will point out that this particular passage did not occur in the Dead sea scrolls, but DID occur in the masoric text, which was several hunderd years younger

Does that mean it is or is not a valid resource on Judaism at that time?

The basic message of the passage is that those leaders who abuse their office and exploit their people will not have their deeds go unpunished.

Unless of course they can conceal them by say a divine vision and pregnancy.

Well, since it appears to have been added after the 2nd century c.e. , then no. it isn't a good source. "Temple Handmaidens" were kicked out of the temple around the writing of 2 Kings (the handmaidens of ashera)...

That was also around 600 bce.. .. which is a whole different time frame than the temple period around the 2nd temple. In case you didn't notice, 600 years can bring a lot of changes. The dates covered by the sotry was 1100 bce to 1000 bce.

To use that as representative of what might or might not have happened in the early part of the 1st century is not too accurate.

[ravenssong]

Goat;
I started a new topic here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 267#204267

I though we were getting off topic.