Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Holy Grail...legend or fact?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
Author
Scorpian View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 323
  Quote Scorpian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Holy Grail...legend or fact?
    Posted: 16-May-2007 at 08:48
What other alterings of history did you have in mind? quote Hope
 
   LOL Where to begin!
    Anything from Jesus birthday being 25th December; let alone Easter;  to the Virginity of the Virgin Mary. Confused 
      I'd be here all day listing every interference and change. But if you want to believe as fact doctrine as defined by others at such places as Nicea then that's your affair.
 
       Too many variations, alterings and interpretations of the same religion should relate my point. One group after another of religious despots have conspired to keep the masses pious and not question what is told them. Hence we have multiple variations of a Christian theme where each would argue theirs was the true path to God.
 My previous point being to go back pre-bullsh*t to an untarnished religion; though for some it is apparent that a whole load of tarnish is acceptable and nothing I will say will sway them to the dark side.Wink
                  
   do you reckon Popes or Religious leaders never lie Question
     
                   
     
                 


Edited by Scorpian - 16-May-2007 at 12:52
Scorpian
Back to Top
Hope View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 184
  Quote Hope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2007 at 11:52
Originally posted by Scorpian

What other alterings of history did you have in mind? quote Hope
 
   LOL Where to begin!
    Anything from Jesus birthday being 25th December; let alone Easter;  to the Virginity of the Virgin Mary. Confused 
      I'd be here all day listing every interference and change. But if you want to believe as fact doctrine as defined by others at such places as Nicea then that's your affair.
 
       Too many variations, alterings and interpretations of the same religion should relate my point. One group after another of religious despots have conspired to keep the masses pious and not question what is told them. Hence we have multiple variations of a Christian theme where each would argue theirs was the true path to God.
 My previous point being to go back pre-bullsh*t to an untarnished religion; though for some it is apparent that a whole load of tarnish is acceptable and nothing I will say will sway them to the dark side.Wink
                  
   do you reckon Popes or Religious leaders never lie Question    
 
Just to make one thing very clear: I've never doubted the existence of certain alterings of history, on the contrary I know them very well. However, I wanted to get some more examples of what you had in mind, so we can discuss this in a broader spectre.
 
As for the dates mentioned, Jesus born the 25th, we can not be certain in either way. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Also, I know that the date of the Easter celebration is an invention of some Church assembly.
 
When speaking of the Virginity of Mary, it is a question of faith, no doubt.
 
However, if you seek to make Christianity appear false with these points (these points being historically correct), I dare say you fail. Not because I deny the truth, but because these details are not important regarding the faith. It shows that the Church has decided some details regarding celebrations, but it does not prove anything regarding the question whether Christianity is false or true. That is a matter of faith only.
 
Then to the question on religious authorities, I believe that religion should be personal. Religious authorities have, still do and will for quite some time lie, cheat, perform hypocricy and so on. I am very sceptical to the idea of such authorities in general and the papacy in particular. Although we are in need of priests as guides in faith, yet what is true and false is up to each person to decide.
Back to Top
Scorpian View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 323
  Quote Scorpian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2007 at 12:59
However, if you seek to make Christianity appear false with these points (these points being historically correct), I dare say you fail. Not because I deny the truth, but because these details are not important regarding the faith. qoute hope
 
      LOL hey! you asked and I gave reply. 
  Seems you judge me too harshly. Unhappy Did I judge you? ErmmNo
 
              Did I mock your faith?Ermm No
                        Did I lie?Ermm No
         
 So what is my actual transgression against you? other than I cannot accept Man made doctrine. 
 
           
      
 
  
 
 
       
 
 
          
               


Edited by Scorpian - 17-May-2007 at 13:04
Scorpian
Back to Top
Hope View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 184
  Quote Hope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2007 at 18:45
I'm sorry if my message sounded a bit more harsh than it should have. My apologies. The point is, I was a bit uncertain when I read your post and misinterpreted it, plus I was a bit tired in the moment of action, which of course is no excuse, just an explanation. Please forgive me my way of expression.
 
However, although my way of expressing myself was not of the best, it still says I don't disagree with you very much. We have our differences, but regarding religious authorities I think we agree.
Back to Top
Scorpian View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 323
  Quote Scorpian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2007 at 10:12
Hope,
       I'm sorry if I offended you.  Embarrassed
    
    My intent was to have folks think & ponder awhile before I swung this conversation back to Sophia in relation to the Holy Grail and Dan Brown.  But seeing as I'm upsetting folks i'll take a break from this thread and let you peeps voice your opinions awhile; though I may jump back into this conversation sometime later.
                               
                                            scorp.
Scorpian
Back to Top
Hope View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 184
  Quote Hope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2007 at 11:30

By all means, Scorpian, you did not, I take full responsibility for the incident. Blame it on, well, me, actually.

Therefore, feel free to make comments, I don't intend to be an obstacle. And you are quite right, pondering and thinking is crucial to any living debate (and society for that matter).
Back to Top
Scorpian View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 323
  Quote Scorpian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2007 at 08:12
 I could have been a little more diplomatic.Embarrassed
 
        I've decided it best not to relate detail about the original concept of Sophia Goddess, Sophia & Templars, Sophia/Mary Magdalene/Christ, Sophia & Solomon, Sophia & the Dragon, Templars & Solomon, Solomon's Seal/Key etc. That stuff can be gleaned off the internet if anyone has a care to research.
        
    My intent was to have folks ponder if the early Christian Church peeps had in fact suppressed wisdom, light & truth in favour of a fabricated doctrine.  
     We have already related Church Doctrine had been altered; hence I reckoned to introduce this further subject and let you folks discuss this related Holy Grail issue by further debate.
                   
    I'm going to back off this subject and ply my mischief elsewhere Wink
                                           
                                     No hard feelingsThumbs%20Up  
                                                  Scorp.
 
           
 
 


Edited by Scorpian - 19-May-2007 at 08:20
Scorpian
Back to Top
Hope View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 184
  Quote Hope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2007 at 11:17
Originally posted by Scorpian

 I could have been a little more diplomatic.Embarrassed
 
        I've decided it best not to relate detail about the original concept of Sophia Goddess, Sophia & Templars, Sophia/Mary Magdalene/Christ, Sophia & Solomon, Sophia & the Dragon, Templars & Solomon, Solomon's Seal/Key etc. That stuff can be gleaned off the internet if anyone has a care to research.
        
    My intent was to have folks ponder if the early Christian Church peeps had in fact suppressed wisdom, light & truth in favour of a fabricated doctrine.  
     We have already related Church Doctrine had been altered; hence I reckoned to introduce this further subject and let you folks discuss this related Holy Grail issue by further debate.
                   
    I'm going to back off this subject and ply my mischief elsewhere Wink
                                           
                                     No hard feelingsThumbs%20Up  
                                                  Scorp.
 
 
 
 
 
Well, when you say Early Christian church, this church consisted of several scattered congregations, not consisting of a unity. These congregations chose themselves to believe which texts they considered to be genuine. Several texts with Gnostic content were not considered genuine, but they were still read and even cherished by some of the early church fathers, because they contained teachings that corresponded with Christian ideas of justice and so on. (Of course, some texts were not appreciated and some church fathers were more strict than others, like Tertullian and Origenes).
 
It was, I believe, not until Constantine the Great favoured Christianity as the religion of the empire that the church started their alterings. But please correct me if I'm wrong.


Edited by Hope - 19-May-2007 at 11:18
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2007 at 12:26

The bloodline of Jesus isn't a new concept as newly written by Dan Brown and a few numpty conspiracy theorists.
       That particular Magdalene tale has been around a long time.


Give me just one instance where a pre-modern religious figure, text or cult believed that Mary Magdalene gave birth to the child of Jesus.


What other alterings of history did you have in mind? quote Hope
 
   LOL Where to begin!
    Anything from Jesus birthday being 25th December; let alone Easter;  to the Virginity of the Virgin Mary. Confused


The church has never said that "Holy Days" had to conform to their actual days in history. All of those are celebrations of the event and can occur at anytime. My birthday is January 25th but I could celebrate it on Mar 12th, does this alter the history of my birthday, no. But unless you were educated you could believe my birthday was Mar 12th, ignorance of the masses doesn't mean something's being hidden from them.

Also, give me one contempary source that proves that Mary was not a virgin. Many people throughout history have remained virgins till their death, why can't you believe she did as well.


It shows that the Church has decided some details regarding celebrations, but it does not prove anything regarding the question whether Christianity is false or true. That is a matter of faith only.


The Church does not need to prove that it is false or true, since it is assumed by it's very nature that it is true. That isn't to say that many Church theologians and philosophers haven't gone to great pains to explain using logic why the Church is the way to the truth, it's just they too are under the basic assumption that the church is true. Which is faith which is held in every philosophical and scientific thought.



I am very sceptical to the idea of such authorities in general and the papacy in particular. Although we are in need of priests as guides in faith, yet what is true and false is up to each person to decide.


Exactly, but you must remember, the authority does not lie within the person who holds the post, but to the position of his office.

So what is my actual transgression against you? other than I cannot accept Man made doctrine.


The insult is to presuppose that the doctrine of belief is man-made. We as Christians have just as much evidence to show that it is divinely created. Just because we operate under a different starting opinion doesn't make our opinion less valid. (The starting opinion is that God acted upon the creators of the doctrine- which you cannot prove or disprove).

    My intent was to have folks ponder if the early Christian Church peeps had in fact suppressed wisdom, light & truth in favour of a fabricated doctrine. 


Doctrine has NEVER EVER EVER been fabricated with a malicious intent. Everytime something has been changed it was under great theological scrutiny beforehand or it was because of conflicting sources. The early church fathers were merely human and took what they thought to be truth and made it their beliefs. The Church has never altered texts but edited them. If you want to look at a religious text that has been altered beyond recognition look at the King James Bible, where it was specifically edited to serve Henry VIII's morality.

Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2007 at 15:51
 
Originally posted by JanusRook

[
The church has never said that "Holy Days" had to conform to their actual days in history. All of those are celebrations of the event and can occur at anytime. My birthday is January 25th but I could celebrate it on Mar 12th, does this alter the history of my birthday, no. But unless you were educated you could believe my birthday was Mar 12th, ignorance of the masses doesn't mean something's being hidden from them.
My birthday is July Fourth. I wish Americans would get the name right, but I appreciate that they celebrate it.
 
You are of course correct.


Also, give me one contempary source that proves that Mary was not a virgin. Many people throughout history have remained virgins till their death, why can't you believe she did as well.
I can happily believe that Mary or Mary Magdalene or any lady that claims to be one is a virgin. I find it difficult to square with their having a child. Most people, contemporary or otherwise, would accept having a baby as proof the mother was not a virgin.
 If you want to look at a religious text that has been altered beyond recognition look at the King James Bible, where it was specifically edited to serve Henry VIII's morality.
Hmm... Do you have any backing for that? Morals-wise, or indeed theology-wise, James I/VI and Henry VIII didn't have a lot in common, apart of course from being in general Christian.
 
Back to Top
Scorpian View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 323
  Quote Scorpian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2007 at 18:34

The church has never said that "Holy Days" had to conform to their actual days in history. quote JanusRook

I was talking more than just Holy DaysConfused 
What happened to pacifism ?  Seems it got dumped in favour of enforcing those divinely created doctrine changes you mention.
 
 
 
(The starting opinion is that God acted upon the creators of the doctrine- which you cannot prove or disprove). quote JanusRook

      Seems you cannot prove or disprove this assuption either.Clap

The insult is to presuppose that the doctrine of belief is man-made. quote JanusRook

  LOLSeems I can't express my own opinion without upsetting folks. There was a time I'd be burnt at the stake for less.Wink
            
The early church fathers were merely human and took what they thought to be truth and made it their beliefs. Quote JanusRook
 
           I'm not even going to go there.Confused
 
Doctrine has NEVER EVER EVER been fabricated with a malicious intent. Quote Janus Rook
 
  Tell that to all the folks who died over the centuries who would oppose this Doctrine.
 
Also, give me one contempary source that proves that Mary was not a virgin.Quote JanusRook
   
    Can you prove Mary was a Virgin? other than relating to those divine doctrines you favour.
 
 
         Phew! I feel as if I went nine rounds with Mike TysonOuchLOL
  
 
                
                       
                        
                
                    
                      
                
             
 
 

      

 


Scorpian
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2007 at 23:21
Most people, contemporary or otherwise, would accept having a baby as proof the mother was not a virgin.


Surprisingly though in the ancient world this was not held to be a problem.
Also, Jesus is seen as a human incarnation of God, and Parthenogenesis does occur in organisms, so it could be that God forced Mary into a state of Parthenogenesis and the Y chromosome is the divine incarnation of God, to use genetics as a possible explanation.


Hmm... Do you have any backing for that? Morals-wise, or indeed theology-wise, James I/VI and Henry VIII didn't have a lot in common, apart of course from being in general Christian.


I was referring to the editing process that "proved" that Henry VIII's actions in severing the Church of England were legitimate and had basis in God's word, (the Bible).


What happened to pacifism ?  Seems it got dumped in favour of enforcing those divinely created doctrine changes you mention.


The Church has always been in favor of pacifism, even the Crusades were only meant to "secure the Holy Land, and make pilgramages safe again". No where did the Pope specify to kill anyone (I think). It was just a natural consequence of the times to make war. The Kings of Europe could also have peacefully negotiated.


Seems you cannot prove or disprove this assuption either.Clap


Exactly so it's a non-issue for both of us.


Tell that to all the folks who died over the centuries who would oppose this Doctrine.


The Church has NEVER killed anyone. They have always offered a second chance to anyone who was in opposition. It was always the Secular courts that executed people for heresy, witchcraft and rebellion, and there was no church approval for these actions either.


    Can you prove Mary was a Virgin? other than relating to those divine doctrines you favour.


Well she never had any children by anything natural. In all contemparary sources she was assumed to have been a virgin until her death. And historical tradition says that she was, whereas like the bloodline of Christ any belief that she wasn't a virgin is a fairly recent concoction.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Hope View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 184
  Quote Hope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2007 at 04:53
The Church (i.e. the Catholic church) may have ordered the death of some heretics - which of course is gruesome and not Christian at all - but their reputation of malicious actions has been exaggerated with the rise of secularity.
 
However, regarding the popes I dare say there were some leaving not the best legacy of Christendom. But whether this was a cause of malice or just a different view of ethics is difficult to say.
 
It should also be noted that institutions such as the Inquisition started as a judicial institution with the best intentions, but it turned into what later has been displayed in popular culture: An institution of bigotry.
 
The Church has not always followed the Path of God and has been hosting quite a lot of bigots and hypocrites, but that was the tune of their age most often.
Back to Top
Scorpian View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 323
  Quote Scorpian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2007 at 05:32
so it could be that God forced Mary into a state of Parthenogenesis and the Y chromosome is the divine incarnation of God, to use genetics as a possible explanation.  quote JanusRook
 
LOL I was going to mention artificial insemination my last post but I reckoned you'd flip considering the turn that conversation would take.
 

I was referring to the editing process that "proved" that Henry VIII's actions in severing the Church of England were legitimate and had basis in God's word, (the Bible).Quote JanusRook
  
       Seems that same editing process was alright for some but not for others.
 
 The Church has always been in favor of pacifism, Quote JanusRook
 
Looks like the Churches stance on Pre Constantine pacifism and Post Constantine pacifism are two differing things.
 
Exactly so it's a non-issue for both of us. Quote JanusRook
 
The Church has NEVER killed anyone. They have always offered a second chance to anyone who was in opposition. It was always the Secular courts that executed people for heresy, witchcraft and rebellion, and there was no church approval for these actions either. Quote JanusRook
 
     Well she never had any children by anything natural. In all contemparary sources she was assumed to have been a virgin until her death. And historical tradition says that she was, whereas like the bloodline of Christ any belief that she wasn't a virgin is a fairly recent concoction.
Quote JanusRook
 
In all honesty I have behaved myself and sought not to provoke other than defend my own opinion. The downright basis of my joining this thread was to play mischief with those who would decry one thing as cack yet defend something else just as unbelievable.
                Embarrassed Seems I got such a reaction and something else.
   
    I have tried to walk away from this thread umpteen times because I don't want to turn this issue into a religious war of words.
          Whilst I never pertained to having an education alike to most of you AE bright intelligent forum folks; The insult given in return was to presume that my knowledge here was beneath contemp and that I don't know squat diddly.  
                      For all intents we are now evenThumbs%20Up
           

 

 




Edited by Scorpian - 21-May-2007 at 10:11
Scorpian
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2007 at 07:45
 
Originally posted by JanusRook

Most people, contemporary or otherwise, would accept having a baby as proof the mother was not a virgin.


Surprisingly though in the ancient world this was not held to be a problem.
Less of a problem than now, admittedly. Remember, though, that while the ancient world happily accepted that gods sometimes impregnated human females, such females were not subsequently seen as virgins.
 
I doubt that in any society a woman who had a baby would have been considered a virgin, certainly at the time.
 


Hmm... Do you have any backing for that? Morals-wise, or indeed theology-wise, James I/VI and Henry VIII didn't have a lot in common, apart of course from being in general Christian.


I was referring to the editing process that "proved" that Henry VIII's actions in severing the Church of England were legitimate and had basis in God's word, (the Bible).

You referred though to the editing of the Bible itself. It would seem you are suggesting that the AV contains text that denies the primacy of the Pope over the church, whereas previous versions had different text supporting it.
 
Maybe you can tell me where to find it.
 
(And while I agree that James and Henry believed themselves to be head of the church in England, they didn't agree on too much else, James leaning to being Protestant and Henry undoubtedly being Catholic.)


Well she never had any children by anything natural.
But that doesn't necessarily make her virgin, any more than, say, Leda was.
 
Back to Top
Hope View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 184
  Quote Hope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2007 at 12:16

And for the record: What matters as a theological issue is whether Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant with Christ. Not if she remained a virgin.

Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 01:21

The origins of the Grail? How could I miss on  this one before? If this is too old a thread perhaps I should start another? As a Celtic warrior, I need to put that one question above all back on the right track. To begin here was part of the lost religion of Europe; they simply did not worship gods and considered Nature as their overall entity rather than God!

When you have any sort of god that represents the earths powers then you subconsciously use your current understanding of nature to get a grip on what you are talking about. To deny this is risking being in denial of life itself. Here is the most basic process of the mind.  The processes of nature always happen and deny them causes us grief. This holistic understanding is not subject to the same challenges as are the countless divisions of other religions. Please consider the modern consequences of ignoring nature. Climate change and all that stuff is happening!

Nature is the cup from which we drink. This pure and simple teaching came from the Mother religion and has never been bettered.  The opponents of the Mother of all religions said God is their meat and drink and have such things as communion to prove it. Dare I say something seems to be missing in the chain of cause and effect there and we havent work our way up the food chain for nothing. The chalice of history is overflowing with references to this minor point. Consider the cornucopia the Roman goddess, Fortune carried. The Old Testament is dripping with illusions to the cup of life. Previous religions had it for here is one of the most basic symbols of all religions.

Dan Brown keeps on alluding to the cup is a major reference to a womans internal body parts, but Brown probably has a dirty mind as well. Okay so he explains that theory and so we all know about being male and female. What is the Celtic connection? I would suggest the Irish stories, but there are many others from all over Europe.

elenos
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 03:10
Hm. Looks like I missed this thread.

I just have a few comments. I think it is important to remember, when reading The DaVinci Code, that Dan Brown displays an appalling ignorance of early Christian history. His account of the life of Constantine and the Arian heresy is woefully innaccurate (esp. with regard to the Council of Nicaea). I also think it is important to remember, as Janus stated, that the canonization of Scripture was not some sort of conspiracy. If we are going to criticize the early fathers, we have a responsibility to understand pneumatology and the theological/ecclesiological position of the Church.

Now to address a few quotes...

Originally posted by Janus Rook


It wasn't an ecumenical council [that set the canon]. It was the synod of Hippo, where many Bishops were in attendence and it was also brought up at the Council of Carthage. In the beginning many people arranged their own Bible's but under the influence of these councils and the creation of the Latin Vulgate the Bible had it's books, of course it should be noted that by the 500's the Cannon of the Bible was agreed upon.


Well stated. The Synod of Laodicea also addressed the issue of canonical Scripture, although the list traditionally attributed to it is generally assumed to have been a later addition to the acts.

Originally posted by gcle2003

Less of a problem than now, admittedly. Remember, though, that while the ancient world happily accepted that gods sometimes impregnated human females, such females were not subsequently seen as virgins.
 
I doubt that in any society a woman who had a baby would have been considered a virgin, certainly at the time.


But isn't there a key difference? In the case of most of the pagan myths the gods usually engaged in physical intercourse with the women who bore their children. In the case of Mary, the Holy Spirit is said to have descended upon her.

Are there pre-Christian myths in which impregnation was not a result of physical intercourse? I don't doubt that there are, but I'd be interested to learn about them.

-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 28-Jul-2007 at 03:15
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 03:37
Originally posted by JanusRook

Most people, contemporary or otherwise,would accept having a baby as proof the mother was not a virgin.
Surprisingly though in the ancient world this was not held to be a problem.


Certainly not for mythical figures it wasn't. For living people it was.

Also, Jesus is seen as a human incarnation of God, and Parthenogenesis does occur in organisms, so it could be that God forced Mary into a state of Parthenogenesis and the Y chromosome is the divine incarnation of God, to use genetics as a possible explanation.


The only problem here - especially in the ancient world in Judea - is that Jesus could then not have been the Messiah. To fulfill prophecy, he had to be a descendant of the flesh of David, ie Joseph had to be his father.

The Church has always been in favor of pacifism


Definately not. Pacifism was popular at some periods (eg the Pax Dei movement) and not at others. The Pope sanctioned wars, and the fact that there were demands made does not change the fact that this is not pacifism. The pacifism evident in the Sermon on the Mount does not entail merely giving a potential victim an out, it demands "no resistance" to violence.

It was just a natural consequence of the times to make war.


Granted, but this does not make it pacifism. It just makes it conform to medieval patterns of violence.

The Church has NEVER killed anyone ... It was always the Secular courts that executed people for heresy, witchcraft and rebellion, and there was no church approval for these actions either.


Oh really?

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1440491

Merely one example in a veritable mountain that go against that particular claim.

whereas like the bloodline of Christ any belief that she wasn't a virgin is a fairly recent concoction.


You've got to be joking. It's been around since the earliest days of Christianity, or maybe you never heard of Arianism.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 03:53
Originally posted by edgewaters


The only problem here - especially in the ancient world in Judea - is that Jesus could then not have been the Messiah. To fulfill prophecy, he had to be a descendant of the flesh of David, ie Joseph had to be his father.


He was of the house of David. That said, Tradition holds that Mary was also of Davidic lineage.

Originally posted by edgewaters


Definately not. Pacifism was popular at some periods (eg the Pax Dei movement) and not at others. The Pope sanctioned wars, and the fact that there were demands made does not change the fact that this is not pacifism. The pacifism evident in the Sermon on the Mount does not entail merely giving a potential victim an out, it demands "no resistance" to violence.


Somewhere (and I apologize, but I cannot recall in which thread) I mentioned that the ancient canons always treat soldiers returning from wars as penitents. War can never be holy; indeed it is a grave sin, a consequence of the Fall. Though it is sometimes necessary, the necessity does not separate the act from the sinfulness necessitated by the Fall.

Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by Janus Rook

whereas like the bloodline of Christ any belief that she wasn't a virgin is a fairly recent concoction.

You've got to be joking. It's been around since the earliest days of Christianity, or maybe you never heard of Arianism.


Im fairly certain that the Arians did not doubt the Virgin Birth.

-Akolouthos
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.