reniaa

Image yes but not an exact copy there is a difference. I think in this case God can argue exeptional circumstances if you read the whole of the account you can see it was done more for jesus's sake than god's, it says jesus emptied himself to become human and only got full knowledge of who he was at 30 when he was baptised. I can imagine that being brought up to the age of 30 as a human, living a meager human existance was invaluable experience to jesus giving him insight into humanity far beyond what just observation can.

That doesn't change fact that no sex was involved so adultery and rape would not stand up as accusations in a court of law.

Also not sure your artificial insemination arguement stands upto scrutiny especially if we are going back to laws of then because we do allow artificial insemination between married couples and Adam and Mary where betrothed which was viewed as a marriage then, a definate contract before finalisation, in fact right upto recent centuries this has been the case. So technically Mary was married.

Chili

But stuart, in the same way as a rose is a rose is a rose only that which is called a rose is the rose, so is a bastard a bastard and by any other name will still be a bastard.

You now we have to look at the essence of bastardness to call a bastard a bastard in the same as we do call a rose a rose.

Do we agree on that? So now do you still think that the essense of bastardness is contained in the letter of the law?

I would argue here that only in the purity of holiness was Mary conceived and from there will continue to bare the children conceived in holiness that are freeborn from upon high.

Chili

The obvious here is that infancy is not a physical event but a spiritual event that follows rebirth of the long lost firstborn identity that is now reborn inside the conscious mind of man (right smack in the middle they say is also where that famous TOK was planted by the ego way back then).

Mark doesn't recognize Jewish spiritual endowments and allows Luke to tell us how it is supposed to be done, from where we go to John where the infancy is a thing of the past to re-occur again each generation anew.

purple_kathryn

I wouldn't say it was rape because no sexual intercourse took place.

Now the Greek & Roman gods - they were all up for the seducing and raping for mortal women.

adren@line

Yeah but Mary was not married to God, who impregnated her, thus producing an illegitimate child per Biblical law.

Minimalist

Shouldn't she then be stoned?

JEST2ASK

I thought I saw an Angel once when I was stoned :devil1:

Allied35

The real question is did Mary have an orgasm during the immaculate conception? If so did she moan "Oh God, yes, yeeaaa oh my God"? Or did just bite the pillow in order not to arouse suspicion on Joseph's part?
Also, if God banged Mary miraculously without breaking her hymen, then surely it broke when she gave birth to Jesus.
So does that make Jesus the only person to have ever taken his own mother's virginity?
How creepy is that?!

yalla

There is a story somewhere in the apocrypha about a midwife who doubted Mary's virginity and performed an 'internal examination' to confirm or otherwise and suffered a withered arm for her scepticism.
Or something like that.
Also, I believe it was catholic dogma at one stage, may still be for all I know, that despite the birth Mary was in a state of permanent virginity before, during and after.

Can anybody confirm or refute these?
No withered arms though please.

Doug Shaver

I take you don't believe can do miracles.

Neither do I, but then I don't believe God exists, either.