- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
I’m not saying I reject the divine conception possibility. I can’t know one way or the other. I do think, however, we miss great symbolic power if we remove the very thing that would take the general idea of someone who was born in the most humble of circumstances and empower it with being marginalized and rejected, as well. Think about it:
If Mary had to flee her family and stay with a cousin in a different area (Elizabeth), and then Joseph had to take her to Bethlehem to avoid his family, how much more symbolically powerful could it be?
Very well stated.The virgin birth narrative is doubtful but not impossible. Since some of us believe, per section 88 of the doctrine and covenants, that god operates through natural law, then we’re faced with one of three possibilities:
1. That Elohim’s literal seed impregnated Mary, either
– a. through physical act, or
– b. through artificial insemination
2. That someone else is Jesus’s father, and
– a. it is what it is, or
– b. somehow that was ‘sanctified’ as being divine heritage
3. Parthenogenesis – greek, literally, for ‘virgin birth’ – that is, spontaneous production of an offspring from the mother alone.
Human parthenogenesis is theoretically possible, but iirc, has never been observed. As well, parthenogenesis cannot produce a male, because the female does not have both X and Y chromosomes. So unless mary was a true Hermaphrodite with fully developed organs of both sexes (again, I don’t think this has been observed), it is unlikely that true ‘parthenogenesis’ is involved.
So, with the exception of possibility 2a, there are a lot of options for Jesus being literally the Son of God.
But ultimately, does it matter? to believers stuck in the literal mindset of direct atonement, it matters a great deal. Given that (1) it’s *possible* that jesus is literally Son of God in the flesh, (2) no one really can prove anything on this one way or the other, and (3) it doesn’t create harm in believing this literal story, then why not — i have no issue accepting ‘on faith’ that jesus is somehow the Son of God in a unique way.
Amen. There is power in all of the options. That’s why I remain open to all of them and the meaning I can take from them. Old-Timer wrote:Amen. There is power in all of the options. That’s why I remain open to all of them and the meaning I can take from them.
I think so too. If it helps someone connect the dots to things they are trying to understand. Why try to take away the way they found a meaningful connection to it.
I’m not sure what to think, I’m open to all but to me it never takes away the fact that we have these teachings of Christ and I’m very grateful for them.
I definitely see a parallel between the Panthera story, and the smoke and mirrors of Mormon history. Both are alike in the sense, that either there is a massive cover up or an incredibly offensive libel taking place. SamBee wrote:I definitely see a parallel between the Panthera story, and the smoke and mirrors of Mormon history. Both are alike in the sense, that either there is a massive cover up or an incredibly offensive libel taking place.
Just like Pandora’s box, It’s really something that cannot be opened up without significant impact.You are correct — significant parallels, so significant it’s scary. There are those who will claim that the virgin birth story is exactly as written in the bible, or the entire plan of salvation falls on this single point. If Jesus was born as Panthera’s bastard, then how is he ‘the son of god’ in the way the LDS church says he is?
yet there is no way to know. speculating simply makes everyone grumpy. Close the box, move along, there’s nothing to see here….
Interesting when considered in conjunction with the company he kept as an adult too. On the subject of whether Jesus Christ was born out of wedlock, I would encourage reading on pages 316-317 of Hugh Nibley’s book, “Temple and Cosmos” where he quotes from an ancient text which tells a very interesting story which to my mind answers the question of the parentage of Jesus. Jeff Walsh Perhaps Jesus was conceived using artificial insemination? Perhaps Jesus was a test tube baby?
Perhaps the gods had intercourse with Mary?
Perhaps Mary had intercourse with a Roman solder?
Perhaps the gods waved a magic wand and Mary got pregnant?
Etc etc etc….
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
InquiringMind wrote:Jesus was an “illegitimate child” because his parents (Heavenly Father and Mary) were not married….It seems to me that, if Jesus is the Son of God, that Heavenly Father must have cheated on his wife (or wives) to father a child with a single woman (Mary) to whom he was not married….And it also gets complicated when we think of it in terms of eternal families. In the traditional LDS view, one is able able to live with one’s family for eternity, which presumably includes one’s married parents. But in heaven, Jesus’ parents (God and Mary) can’t be married, because God is already married to Heavenly Mother (and possibly other women) and Mary is married (and presumably sealed for eternity) to Joseph. So while many people spend eternity with their married parents, Jesus can’t spend eternity with his married parents because his parents were never married.
I started a conversation about some of this stuff herehttp://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3339 I’m being short and concise here due to time, so don’t take it as anything negative
If Jesus could be defined as an illegitimate child in any way, that takes nothing away from His glory.
The Holy Ghost SOMEHOW made it so Mary got pregnant. I believe there was absolutely no coitus or cheating involved. If a man donates sperm today, is that cheating? No. And we don’t even know if sperm was involved.
I don’t think there’s an issue with eternal families. Jesus is on the right hand of Heavenly Father regardless.
Nephite wrote:…
The Holy Ghost SOMEHOW made it so Mary got pregnant. I believe there was absolutely no coitus or cheating involved. If a man donates sperm today, is that cheating? No. And we don’t even know if sperm was involved. ..
Yep. Aliens gods would/could explain many mysteries of religion.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Yes, some people have suggested that Mary was abducted by aliens and Joseph Smith too. There are some similarities. I think the Genesis and Ezekiel narratives have some ET overtones, as does the idea of Elijah being taken up in the whirlwind.
A thought just occurred to me… if the Holy Ghost is an actual person who is separate from God, and the HG is the one who “overcame” and impregnated Mary, wouldn’t that make HG Jesus’ literal father? The other scene that keeps playing in my mind is God pulling aside HG and saying, “Here is some of my sperm. Wait for Gabriel to finish talking to that virgin over there and then put it in her.” or it could be allegorical and not literal That doesn’t lessen the account or the power in any way for me. In some ways, it makes it much more meaningful for me.
Meoclew wrote:A thought just occurred to me… if the Holy Ghost is an actual person who is separate from God, and the HG is the one who “overcame” and impregnated Mary, wouldn’t that make HG Jesus’ literal father? The other scene that keeps playing in my mind is God pulling aside HG and saying, “Here is some of my sperm. Wait for Gabriel to finish talking to that virgin over there and then put it in her.”
We’re getting into difficult territory here. Now LDs doctrine accords with mainstream Christianity in this. Before, I believe that Brigham Young stated that HF was the father.
I will just give my opinion – this is not backed up by facts or statements at the moment, ok? I believe the statement/ teaching that Jesus had to be half mortal and half divine to succeed in the Atonement. Thus, his parentage were from both Mary and Heavenly Father.
That said, I have no idea, absolutely none, how the whole Joseph/ Mary/ Heavenly Father/ Holy Ghost thing has worked out.
I tend to believe that the GA’s got it wrong and there is another explanation via the “power” of the Holy Ghost, but I am not too worried about it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.