Virginity

[Stewart Connell]

I want to say something about Mary and her virginity, from the point of view of the Catholic and Protestant and other Churches, denominations of the Christian Church, during its negotiation of Christianity, which can be seen to go back thousands of years to the origin of the Old Testament and extend forward until who knows when.

The negotiation attempts to discern the significance of Jesus’ life on earth. The Old Testament in retrospect and the New Testament, in retrospect and now until who knows when. One way to express the significance is the reference to virginity in association with Mary and the birth on earth of the Son of God.

It is not a unique reference. Virginity in association with mythological people and births is fairly common. Research verifies its commonality.

At this point it may help to say something about mythology and its expressions, myths, which are statements of significance. They are not lies, as commonly claimed. They are not intended to fool or deceive but instead draw attention to particular significances.

Now can it be said more clearly that reference to Mary and the birth and perhaps life of Jesus is a myth.

The Church knows this. Its Catholic, Protestant and other denominations know. Composition of the myth can be traced by form criticism, a means of examining the Old and New Testaments to highlight its layers, their commonality and distinctions. This shows how the myth of virginity in relation to Mary were added to form part of the New Testament.

It wasn’t done to lie. Deception wasn’t its aim. The aim was to express as clearly as possible in the terms available the significance of Mary and more particularly Jesus on earth.

There were many terms available, nevertheless limited by time and space, the condition of life on earth.

Unfortunately all terms on earth are limited by its condition. It has limited time and space. Terms of significance on earth are limited in the same ways. This included the terms used to express the significance of Mary and Jesus on earth.

Time and space change. Reference to significance changes accordingly. This is meant to be.

Reference to the significance of Mary and Jesus is meant to respond to this change. This is in order to communicate the same significance. It is an unchanging significance representing a change in time and space.

This is necessary. It is ongoing, from the beginning to the end of the negotiation. It is a timeless necessity.

It happens anyway, irrespective of our compliance, endeavour, acceptance.

In as far as we don’t accept, comply, endeavour to negotiate the required change in our lives, we become fossils, still of some use for identification and verification.

The Christian Church, in all its denominations, is still of some use for identifying and the significance of the life of Jesus and his mother on earth. This is despite any endeavour to the contrary, any lack of acceptance and compliance, any lack of endeavour to express the timeless significance of Jesus and his mother on earth.

This however comes with the pain of dissatisfaction, associated with lack of union and communion, in other words love.

Historically, currently and in the future this may be seen in all contexts, including those associated with virginity, including sexuality, and its identity and verification.
This includes those leading to abuse.

 

[BeyondET]

I want to say something about Mary and her virginity, from the point of view of the Catholic and Protestant and other Churches, denominations of the Christian Church, during its negotiation of Christianity, which can be seen to go back thousands of years to the origin of the Old Testament and extend forward until who knows when.

The negotiation attempts to discern the significance of Jesus’ life on earth. The Old Testament in retrospect and the New Testament, in retrospect and now until who knows when. One way to express the significance is the reference to virginity in association with Mary and the birth on earth of the Son of God.

It is not a unique reference. Virginity in association with mythological people and births is fairly common. Research verifies its commonality.

At this point it may help to say something about mythology and its expressions, myths, which are statements of significance. They are not lies, as commonly claimed. They are not intended to fool or deceive but instead draw attention to particular significances.

Now can it be said more clearly that reference to Mary and the birth and perhaps life of Jesus is a myth.

The Church knows this. Its Catholic, Protestant and other denominations know. Composition of the myth can be traced by form criticism, a means of examining the Old and New Testaments to highlight its layers, their commonality and distinctions. This shows how the myth of virginity in relation to Mary were added to form part of the New Testament.

It wasn’t done to lie. Deception wasn’t its aim. The aim was to express as clearly as possible in the terms available the significance of Mary and more particularly Jesus on earth.

There were many terms available, nevertheless limited by time and space, the condition of life on earth.

Unfortunately all terms on earth are limited by its condition. It has limited time and space. Terms of significance on earth are limited in the same ways. This included the terms used to express the significance of Mary and Jesus on earth.

Time and space change. Reference to significance changes accordingly. This is meant to be.

Reference to the significance of Mary and Jesus is meant to respond to this change. This is in order to communicate the same significance. It is an unchanging significance representing a change in time and space.

This is necessary. It is ongoing, from the beginning to the end of the negotiation. It is a timeless necessity.

It happens anyway, irrespective of our compliance, endeavour, acceptance.

In as far as we don’t accept, comply, endeavour to negotiate the required change in our lives, we become fossils, still of some use for identification and verification.

The Christian Church, in all its denominations, is still of some use for identifying and the significance of the life of Jesus and his mother on earth. This is despite any endeavour to the contrary, any lack of acceptance and compliance, any lack of endeavour to express the timeless significance of Jesus and his mother on earth.

This however comes with the pain of dissatisfaction, associated with lack of union and communion, in other words love.

Historically, currently and in the future this may be seen in all contexts, including those associated with virginity, including sexuality, and its identity and verification.
This includes those leading to abuse.

Is it because you dont think parthenogenesis can happen in humans?

 

[RedFan]

Stewart, welcome to the forum.

You are certainly right that human understandings of religious matters evolve over time. But in the case of Christianity I would not call even half of those evolving understandings "negotiations," as though they were debated and dickered over. Some such understandings, like the perpetual virginity of Mary, certainly do fall into that category. The virgin birth itself is not of that ilk. No early Christians "negotiated" that concept.

I agree with your characterization of "myth." I see a more robust explanation in Karen Armstrong's book The Case for God:

"In popular parlance, a “myth” is something that is not true. But in the past, myth was not self-indulgent fantasy; rather, like logos, it helped people to live effectively in our confusing world, though in a different way. Myths may have told stories about the gods, but they were really focused on the more elusive, puzzling, and tragic aspects of the human predicament that lay outside the remit of logos. Myth has been called a primitive form of psychology. When a myth described heroes threading their way through labyrinths, descending into the underworld, or fighting monsters, these were not understood as primarily factual stories. They were designed to help people negotiate the obscure regions of the psyche, which are difficult to access but which profoundly influence our thought and behavior. People had to enter the warren of their own minds and fight their personal demons. When Freud and Jung began to chart their scientific search for the soul, they instinctively turned to these ancient myths. A myth was never intended as an accurate account of a historical event; it was something that had in some sense happened once but that also happens all the time.

"But a myth would not be effective if people simply “believed” in it. It was essentially a program of action. It could put you in the correct spiritual or psychological posture, but it was up to you to take the next step and make the “truth” of the myth a reality in your own life. The only way to assess the value and truth of any myth was to act upon it. The myth of the hero, for example, which takes the same form in nearly all cultural traditions, taught people how to unlock their own heroic potential. Later the stories of historical figures such as the Buddha, Jesus, or Muhammad were made to conform to this paradigm so that their followers could imitate them in the same way. Put into practice, a myth could tell us something profoundly true about our humanity."

The virgin birth as recounted in Matthew's gospel doesn't quite fit Armstrong's definition of myth, and, I think, does not properly jibe with your own as you've explained it here. Of course I could be wrong here. But this much I am pretty sure of: whether Matthew got the story right, or whether he simply reinterpreted Isaiah 7:14 to give an explanation of Jesus' origin that expressed the early Church's personal experience and understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ, is not something we can decide based on form criticism. I am very curious to know why you think otherwise. We will need to mine Matthew's sources here, not an easy task (except perhaps for the inerrantists who make up a majority of those who participate in this forum). And if you can exhume enough ore to support your thesis, I will humbly apologize. But I am betting against you.