Mary Born without Original Sin ?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Goddess Kali
I always wondored...why or how was the Virgin Mary born without Original Sin ?


Did she have some kind of immunization ?


Is it her genetics ?


Why would God just choose one woman and figure "well, im gonna give you a free pass, while all other women suffer original sin, and torment in hell...you i will treat special"


I know God needed a pure woman, but why Mary ? Why not Elizabeth, or Gertrude ? Why Mary ?


I understand Jesus was born of a pure woman, but what was Mary born of that made her so special ?

debbiejo
Well she wasn't. It's a newer Catholic teaching.

Goddess Kali
So shes a dirty whore like the rest of them b*tches ?

debbiejo
HAHAHAHAHA........Does that turn you on?

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by debbiejo
HAHAHAHAHA........Does that turn you on?


dd

Symmetric Chaos
I think the very fact that she was a virgin was meant to convey that she was sinless.

debbiejo
The word virgin also meant someone very young. She was probably somewhere around 14.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by debbiejo
The word virgin also meant someone very young.
I've never heard that before.

Originally posted by debbiejo
She was probably somewhere around 14.
Fun times.

Crimson Phoenix
I saw a documentary on the bbc ages ago that looked into the life of mary, and they suggested that (SHOCK), may not have been a virgin. Also that she may have been 12 when she gave birth to jesus. That one came as a bit of a shocker

siriuswriter
Ummm... she was not sinless. According to what I believe, she was divinely impregnated (think the ending of "Dogma."wink

Thus "Virgin."

And yeah, she was young. That's what they did back then - marry right when a girl began began to menstruate. *shudder*

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I always wondored...why or how was the Virgin Mary born without Original Sin ?


Did she have some kind of immunization ?


Is it her genetics ?


Why would God just choose one woman and figure "well, im gonna give you a free pass, while all other women suffer original sin, and torment in hell...you i will treat special"


I know God needed a pure woman, but why Mary ? Why not Elizabeth, or Gertrude ? Why Mary ?


I understand Jesus was born of a pure woman, but what was Mary born of that made her so special ?

I know the answer:




It's mythology and didn't happen that way in reality.

Regret
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I always wondored...why or how was the Virgin Mary born without Original Sin ?


Did she have some kind of immunization ?


Is it her genetics ?


Why would God just choose one woman and figure "well, im gonna give you a free pass, while all other women suffer original sin, and torment in hell...you i will treat special"


I know God needed a pure woman, but why Mary ? Why not Elizabeth, or Gertrude ? Why Mary ?


I understand Jesus was born of a pure woman, but what was Mary born of that made her so special ? Debbie Jo is correct, it is a early Catholic tradition. The rationale being that Christ needed to be born without sin, how could he be born without sin from a sinful parent? Thus another Traditional Christian paradox, explained by adding a commentary to the text of the Bible. This is the typical method of mainstream Christianity, Bible doesn't make sense to them, come up with some explanation for it, and everything else then becomes unBiblical.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Regret
Debbie Jo is correct, it is a early Catholic tradition. The rationale being that Christ needed to be born without sin, how could he be born without sin from a sinful parent? Thus another Traditional Christian paradox, explained by adding a commentary to the text of the Bible. This is the typical method of mainstream Christianity, Bible doesn't make sense to them, come up with some explanation for it, and everything else then becomes unBiblical.

Sin is passed through the father, that is why Jesus' earthly mother had to be a virgin so that Jesus' Father (Who is sinless) could supernaturally deposit His seed (i.e. His Word) into Mary's womb to bring Jesus into the earth (God does everything by His Word).

Mary was a sinner just like everyone else, but she was a virgin at the time she became supernaturally pregnant with Jesus. Jesus inherited His sinless nature from His Father in Heaven (Who is sinless), but received His physical, human body from Mary.

In short, Jesus' lineage (as God in the flesh) is not through Adam (the sinful representative of humanity), it is through His Heavenly Father (again, Who is sinless). Thus, Jesus sinless nature was not compromise, it remained intact.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Sin is passed through the father, that is why Jesus' earthly mother had to be a virgin so that Jesus' Father (Who is sinless) could supernaturally deposit His seed (i.e. His Word) into Mary's womb to bring Jesus into the earth (God does everything by His Word).

Mary was a sinner just like everyone else, but she was a virgin at the time she became supernaturally pregnant with Jesus. Jesus inherited His sinless nature from His Father in Heaven (Who is sinless), but received His physical, human body from Mary.

In short, Jesus' lineage (as God in the flesh) is not through Adam (the sinful representative of humanity), it is through His Heavenly Father (again, Who is sinless). Thus, Jesus sinless nature was not compromise, it remained intact.

so god is sexually male? christianity teaches that lineage is through father alone? the sin can be transmitted through a step father{seeing as how u said GOD REQUIRED A "VIRGIN" for the purpose that sin passed through father}? WORDS bring about impregnation as opposed to sperm?

still doesnt answer the question why god CHOSE mary for no reason at all. maybe she turned him on smokin' , maybe he prefers virgins to COME ON TO.

siriuswriter
In my opinion, God is not as simple as being male or female. God just is. If we could understand what God was, then God would not be worth understanding.

However, God certainly has more than enough power to impregnate a woman while still maintaining her virginity. That's why I referenced the ending of Dogma, as that's kind of how I see it (very, very irreverent, yes, I realize that). But a sort of a willing of a baby to be there, and then it's there. God can do that. God didn't have to literally impregnate Mary, he could very well have done it through a miracle.

Again, that's why she was called the Virgin Mary, and so surprised she was going to have a baby. She hadn't actually had sex with anyone. Jesus' conception was a sexless one. At least, that's what I believe. I don't think it was a word thing. Whatever God wants to happen; will happen. If God wanted a virgin to have a baby, he could plant the seed of a male baby in her womb. We don't have to totally understand how it happened - there's going to be no scientific explanation for that, no matter how hard we look. That's where faith comes in.

Storm
In traditional Christian theology, sexual intercourse is believed to be the means by which the original sin of Adam is transmitted from human to human. Conception without sex means existence without sin.

The tradition that Jesus was born of a virgin is traced back to a supposed prophecy in Isaiah. As debbiejo briefly addressed, the term "virgin" appears in the Greek translation but the original Hebrew word, ha-almah, means "young woman" while it was translated into Greek with the word parthenos, which means virgin.
The Hebrew word for that, if that is what the author had meant to say, would have been bethulah. The phrase in which it appears, ha-alma hara, means "the young woman is pregnant".

FeceMan
It can mean that, but Matthew disagrees.

Goddess Kali
I dont thnk u guys understand my question....


I am not questioning whether or not Mary was a Virgin mother as truth or fiction....


I already beleive its myth, and ofcourse, some Christians will beleive its Fact....that's not what I am trying to discover.



As part of the Christian mythos/tradition/culture, Mary was born free of sin.


Why did God choose her ?


Some Christians say that God chose Mary to give birth to Christ, because she was pure.


But why was she pure ?


What made her so special from all the other Marys and other women ?


Was she born without original sin by accident ? Or did God choose her ?


If God chose her, then why ? Did he randomly pull a name out of a hat, and say "okay, im going to give this one a free card"



Someone please clarify the details for me, my brain is melting

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I dont thnk u guys understand my question....


I am not questioning whether or not Mary was a Virgin mother as truth or fiction....


I already beleive its myth, and ofcourse, some Christians will beleive its Fact....that's not what I am trying to discover.



As part of the Christian mythos/tradition/culture, Mary was born free of sin.


Why did God choose her ?


Some Christians say that God chose Mary to give birth to Christ, because she was pure.


But why was she pure ?


What made her so special from all the other Marys and other women ?


Was she born without original sin by accident ? Or did God choose her ?


If God chose her, then why ? Did he randomly pull a name out of a hat, and say "okay, im going to give this one a free card"



Someone please clarify the details for me, my brain is melting

Mary was a direct descendant of David.

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Mary was a direct descendant of David.


Really ?


That makes a lot of sense now....so its family lineage....


I am assuming that since this family has always served God, that Mary would have been the perfect candidate for such an event.


I also heard that at one time, the power of the feminine was quite prevelant over the eras of Christianity, but over time, men in power feared the influence that the feminine would have on the social structure....

So stories and testiments by Mary Magdeline were revoked, and her position and role in the life of Christ was lessened.

If you really take a look at the life of Christ, (atleast from every possible document we have), Mary Magdeline had an enormous role in his life, and with his teachings.

Yet, they give greater credit to the Apostles, most of whom even denied and doubted him, one who even betrayed him.


yet, Mary Magdeline, never doubted Christ (according to the testiments), she witnessed the disappearance of his body, and his rebirth, and the Apostles did not even beleive her when she told them Christ came back.

AngryManatee
If Mary got tapped by god, wouldn't there still be a possibility that Jesus didn't inherit his father's sinless qualities? Anyone wanna do a punnet square on this lol?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Really ?


That makes a lot of sense now....so its family lineage....


I am assuming that since this family has always served God, that Mary would have been the perfect candidate for such an event.


I also heard that at one time, the power of the feminine was quite prevelant over the eras of Christianity, but over time, men in power feared the influence that the feminine would have on the social structure....

So stories and testiments by Mary Magdeline were revoked, and her position and role in the life of Christ was lessened.

If you really take a look at the life of Christ, (atleast from every possible document we have), Mary Magdeline had an enormous role in his life, and with his teachings.

Yet, they give greater credit to the Apostles, most of whom even denied and doubted him, one who even betrayed him.


yet, Mary Magdeline, never doubted Christ (according to the testiments), she witnessed the disappearance of his body, and his rebirth, and the Apostles did not even beleive her when she told them Christ came back.

However, I don't believe that Mary (the mother of Jesus) was a direct descendant of David. Anyone who was a direct descendant of David would have been rich and part of the royal family, and Mary and Jesus were poor.

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, I don't believe that Mary (the mother of Jesus) was a direct descendant of David. Anyone who was a direct descendant of David would have been rich and part of the royal family, and Mary and Jesus were poor.


Not necessarily...there are plenty of poor people who are descent from the rich, and vise versa.


The House of David could have lost power by then, or Mary could have been abandoned by greedy relatives.

Perhaps, she was the only genuine/good relative, thus making her free from original sin.

you know how it goes....power corrupts...even between family members....Mary could have had rich relatives who didnt care about her, she may have not even been aware of it.


In fact, my grandmother grew up rich in Peru, but when she came to the United States, her family lost thier wealth, and my mother had to start from scatch

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Not necessarily...there are plenty of poor people who are descent from the rich, and vise versa.


The House of David could have lost power by then, or Mary could have been abandoned by greedy relatives.

Perhaps, she was the only genuine/good relative, thus making her free from original sin.

you know how it goes....power corrupts...even between family members....Mary could have had rich relatives who didnt care about her, she may have not even been aware of it.


In fact, my grandmother grew up rich in Peru, but when she came to the United States, her family lost thier wealth, and my mother had to start from scatch

However, there is a very good chance that David himself was a myth. There is no record of king Dave other then the bible.

Storm
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has not gone uncontested. It was the source of great controversy among medieval theologians. There would be no biblical support or scriptural basis for the Immaculate Conception. Scriptures such as angel Gabriel' s greeting to Mary merely serve as corroborative evidence assuming that the dogma is already well established. There is insufficient evidence to prove the dogma to someone basing their beliefs solely on biblical interpretation.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, there is a very good chance that David himself was a myth. There is no record of king Dave other then the bible.
After he built a robotic Godzilla, his name was blotted out of all historical records.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FeceMan
After he built a robotic Godzilla, his name was blotted out of all historical records.

Well, that puts history into a... new perspective. roll eyes (sarcastic) laughing out loud

debbiejo
Jesus was a step child.......

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by debbiejo
Jesus was a step child.......

He was an ugly step child. laughing out loud

debbiejo
He was an illegitimate step child....In the US courts his rights would differ from his legitimate bros and sisters.

JesusIsAlive

debbiejo
Step children who are illegitimate are exempt.

Shakyamunison
There are some people who believe that Buddha was born of a virgin, and that was 500 years before Jesus was born.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There are some people who believe that Buddha was born of a virgin, and that was 500 years before Jesus was born.

There are some people who also believe in green dragons, that does not make them real.

velho

shock(I just saw a green dragon).

laughing out loud

No, seriously Buddah was not divine nor was he born of a virgin. But Jesus is the Son of God; therefore, He is divine and He was born of a virgin according to the Word of the living God.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There are some people who also believe in green dragons, that does not make them real.

velho

shock(I just saw a green dragon).

laughing out loud

No, seriously Buddah was not divine nor was he born of a virgin. But Jesus is the Son of God; therefore, He is divine and He was born of a virgin according to the Word of the living God.

I don't believe that Buddha was divine or born of a virgin, but many did and still do. My point is that the idea of a man-god virgin birth was common at the time of the birth of Jesus. I believe his followers used that common idea to boaster the young religion after the death of Jesus.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe that Buddha was divine or born of a virgin, but many did and still do. My point is that the idea of a man-god virgin birth was common at the time of the birth of Jesus. I believe his followers used that common idea to boaster the young religion after the death of Jesus.

And I believe that Jesus was truly divine and born of a virgin. I believe that Jesus had to be born of a virgin so that He could come into the human race without inheriting Adam's sin nature. If He had, then we would all be lost. There would have been no other sinless Person who could have died for our sins.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
And I believe that Jesus was truly divine and born of a virgin. I believe that Jesus had to be born of a virgin so that He could come into the human race without inheriting Adam's sin nature. If He had, then we would all be lost. There would have been no other sinless Person who could have died for our sins.

And many people believe that Buddha was divine and born of a virgin. We have covered this already.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And many people believe that Buddha was divine and born of a virgin. We have covered this already.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There are some people who also believe in green dragons, that does not make them real.

velho


shock(I just saw a green dragon).


laughing out loud

No, seriously Buddah was not divine nor was he born of a virgin. But Jesus is the Son of God; therefore, He is divine and He was born of a virgin according to the Word of the living God.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive


What is your point? I don't think you have one.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is your point? I don't think you have one.

I didn't want you to think that I was not responding to your post.

big grin

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I didn't want you to think that I was not responding to your post.

big grin

But you didn't respond with any substance.

What do you think about the fact that man-god virgin birth was something that was put on Buddha, by his followers, 500 years before the followers of Jesus did the same thing?

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you didn't respond with any substance.

What do you think about the fact that man-god virgin birth was something that was put on Buddha, by his followers, 500 years before the followers of Jesus did the same thing?

You basically responded with a reiteration and so did I.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You basically responded with a reiteration and so did I.

You failed to understand my point, No problem, I can understand. Now, please review the posts with the knowledge that nothing is meant to be a reiteration.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You failed to understand my point, No problem, I can understand. Now, please review the posts with the knowledge that nothing is meant to be a reiteration.

But it was a reiteration.

Shakyamunison

JesusIsAlive

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Correct, I don't know what you are talking about.


What do you think about the fact that man-god virgin birth was something that was put on Buddha, by his followers, 500 years before the followers of Jesus did the same thing?

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What do you think about the fact that man-god virgin birth was something that was put on Buddha, by his followers, 500 years before the followers of Jesus did the same thing?

The Egyptians believed that Pharaoh was a divine man as well, it is nothing new.

Besides, did Buddha declare that he was divine? No? But Jesus did affirm His divinity on a number of occasions.

Well, I will talk to you later brother I got to get something to eat.

pizza pepsi

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Egyptians believed that Pharaoh was a divine man as well, it is nothing new.

Besides, did Buddha declare that he was divine? No? But Jesus did affirm His divinity on a number of occasions.

Well, I will talk to you later brother I got to get something to eat.

pizza pepsi

You keep missing my point. The idea of making Jesus a man-god divine virgin birth, was nothing new or novel at the time of Jesus.

BTW Buddha said he was not divine but the pharaohs of Egypt, like Jesus, did claim to be divine. It seems that Buddha was the only one who was different, in that he had the wisdom to tell people that he was just human.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You keep missing my point. The idea of making Jesus a man-god divine virgin birth, was nothing new or novel at the time of Jesus.

BTW Buddha said he was not divine but the pharaohs of Egypt, like Jesus, did claim to be divine. It seems that Buddha was the only one who was different, in that he had the wisdom to tell people that he was just human.

But Jesus was divine and proved it when He rose from the dead.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But Jesus was divine and proved it when He rose from the dead.

laughing Ya, the Egyptian Pharaohs also rose from the dead. laughing

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
laughing Ya, the Egyptian Pharaohs also rose from the dead. laughing

No, they did not. Their sarcophaguses contain their mummified remains.

But Jesus' tomb is empty.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, they did not. There sarcophagus contains their mummified remains. But Jesus' tomb is empty.


You mean the one they found just recently with the bone of Jesus in it?

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You mean the one they found just recently with the bone of Jesus in it?

Are you talking about that lie?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Are you talking about that lie?

No, I am talking about the lie that you believe.

Boris
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But Jesus' tomb is empty.

No it's not, Cameron found his remains.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Boris
No it's not, Cameron found his remains. You consider Cameron a credible source? That's laughable.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you didn't respond with any substance.

What do you think about the fact that man-god virgin birth was something that was put on Buddha, by his followers, 500 years before the followers of Jesus did the same thing? When did that legend about Buddha originate? The legend of the virgin birth of Buddha is quite a bit different than Mary's. Something along the lines of Maya being a virgin until the conception of Buddha, not a supernatural birth.

Goddess Kali
why does every thread eventually turn into a war ?

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by Boris
No it's not, Cameron found his remains.

Sounds like a Hoax.

Bicnarok

Templares
IIRC, Joseph and not Mary is the one carrying King David's bloodline. Too bad Jesus is not from his sperm.

lord xyz
Originally posted by debbiejo
The word virgin also meant someone very young. She was probably somewhere around 14. I don't think 14 is very young. Especially back then.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Templares
IIRC, Joseph and not Mary is the one carrying King David's bloodline. Too bad Jesus is not from his sperm.

http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/sgosp1.html

Boris
I went through my family tree and I'm related to Jesus.

Bow down!

debbiejo
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You mean the one they found just recently with the bone of Jesus in it? They found a bone?? blink

Ohhhhhhh I should start a thread about the DNA they found of Jesus on the "Holy of Holies" just underneath the cross. Pictures and all....underground in a cave.

Anyone interested?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.