Originally posted by lucifershammerIt's not conclusive that St John is the beloved disciple, except by tradition.
This is strange because Jesus is mentioned to have "brothers" in 2:12. If Mary was not a virgin, and had other sons after Jesus, why would he need to give her over to John (the beloved disciple)?
There is a progressive (if spurious) theory that the beloved disciple is
St Mary Magalyne, which would make this comment far more logical.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerI take it your definition of virgin means woman with hymen intact. Remember that the meaning of the word changed over time:
My point is that the most commonly cited suspects (Mithras, Zoroaster and possibly Dionysus) aren't virgin births.
"Holy Virgin" was the title of harlot-priestesses of Ishtar (and) Asherah. The title didn't mean physical virginity; it meant simply "unmarried." The function of such "holy virgins" was to dispense the Mother's grace through sexual worship; to heal; to prophesy; to perform sacred dances; to wail for the dead; and to become Brides of God."[1]
The Hebrews called the children of these priestesses bathur, which meant literally "virgin-born" as in those children who were born of the holy harlot-priestesses of the temple. The Hellenic world had no equivalent to the bizarre rituals of Ishtar, and mistranslated and misunderstood the literal Hebrew's bathur as parthenioi, also "virgin-born" but in the sense of physical, not spiritual, virginity. (from the infidels article)
So, in the ancient world, it was possible to have sexual intercourse and still be regarded as a (spiritual) virgin. In that tradition, Mary's physical virginity would not have been terribly important.
Originally posted by NemesioI'll have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure there are other verses in John that make the identity of the "beloved disciple" clearer.
It's not conclusive that St John is the beloved disciple, except by tradition.
There is a progressive (if spurious) theory that the beloved disciple is
St Mary Magalyne, which would make this comment far more logical.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't actually know if Still has got the whole "bathur" thing correct yet. In any case, the Bible makes a point of emphasising Mary's physical virginity ("never known man" etc.)
I take it your definition of virgin means woman with hymen intact. Remember that the meaning of the word changed over time:
"Holy Virgin" was the title of harlot-priestesses of Ishtar (and) Asherah. The title didn't mean physical virginity; it meant simply "unmarried." The function of such "holy virgins" was to dispense the Moth ...[text shortened]... l) virgin. In that tradition, Mary's physical virginity would not have been terribly important.
Also, it is not clear to me if the whole "Holy Virgin" thing is a misnomer. If the term 'virgin' does not refer to physical virginity in either the Hebrew or the traditions, then maybe it's the translator to English who's getting it wrong. The authors of the Septuaguint were Jews who spoke both Hebrew and Greek, so (and I've made this point before) their translation would reflect the way their culture understood those terms in the Hebrew.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'll take your speculation as a grudging admission that I may have a point.
I don't actually know if Still has got the whole "bathur" thing correct yet. In any case, the Bible makes a point of emphasising Mary's physical virginity ("never known man" etc.)
Also, it is not clear to me if the whole "Holy Virgin" thing is a misnomer. If the term 'virgin' does not refer to physical virginity in either the Hebrew or th ...[text shortened]... eir translation would reflect the way their culture understood those terms in the Hebrew.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNot at all. I hold, based on the evidence so far, that the translators of the Septuaguint knew exactly what they were doing when they used 'parthenoi' (or whatever). Still attempts to portray the whole issue as a translation error, forgetting the simple fact that the translators we're talking about were not Greeks who spoke Hebrew; but Jews who spoke Greek.
I'll take your speculation as a grudging admission that I may have a point.
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioJohn 20:2 - Mary Magdalene and the 'disciple that Jesus loved' are definitely two persons.
It's not conclusive that St John is the beloved disciple, except by tradition.
There is a progressive (if spurious) theory that the beloved disciple is
St Mary Magalyne, which would make this comment far more logical.
Nemesio
EDIT: And he's definitely male (Jn 20:5).
EDIT2: And he's probably John (Jn 21:24).
Originally posted by lucifershammerThen you've missed the point, which is that the goddesses, nymphs & women who were impregnated by gods in myth were "spiritual virgins". Any pagan would have made the connection (and they did, long ago). There has been enough comparison of Mary with older goddesses for you to see my point.
Not at all.
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWait just a minute! I know there were orders of women who were considered "spiritual virgins" (I can think of the Delphi oracles, for instance), and I know there were goddesses, nymphs etc. who were impregnated by gods - but I've never seen them put together. For instance, I have never seen Europa, Io or Semele talked of as "spiritual virgins". I could be wrong - but I challenge you to prove it.
Then you've missed the point, which is that the goddesses, nymphs & women who were impregnated by gods in myth were "spiritual virgins". Any pagan would have made the connection (and they did, long ago). There has been enough comparison of Mary with older goddesses for you to see my point.
Methinks you and Still are just mixing up your concepts.
EDIT: I think I made this point when you mentioned Mithras and Earth Goddess as well. Just because two ancient concepts exist that can be combined to give you the similarity you're looking for (to Christianity) does not mean that people (pagan or early Christian) did actually combine them.
Originally posted by lucifershammerVirgin birth is a confusing subject in general. I have found an enlightening (pro-Christian) web article which I generally concur with (http://www.athmaprakashini.com/virginbirth.htm). Careful reading of it should reveal why "parallellists" such as myself are justified in their views that Christ's birth echoes others (e.g. Horus) as well as why Christians are equally justified in claiming that Christ's birth is unique.
you are confused
I'll paste in two definitions to get you started. Happy reading.
a. Virgin birth in general sense. In the context of myth and religion, the virgin birth is applied to any miraculous conception and birth. In this sense, whether the mother is technically a virgin is of secondary importance to the fact that she conceives and gives birth by some means other than the ordinary. The virgin birth story is ultimately not the story of a physiological quirk; it is the story of divinity entering the human experience by the only door- way available to it..3
In this general sense, the concept of virgin birth is found in most of the religions and secular traditions. It is found in the religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Zoroastrianism, and in Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greco-Roman and Hellenistic traditions.
b. Virgin birth in technical sense. In technical sense, virgin birth refers only to Jesus Christ and the manner in which He came into the world to save the sinful mankind. By this, scholars mean that Jesus' conception in the womb of Mary was not the result of sexual relationship.4 Mary was a virgin at the time of the conception, and continued so up to the point of the birth of Christ. Word of God clearly points that Joseph did not have sexual relationship with Mary "till she had brought forth her first-born son" (Matt. 1:25).
Here's an article (rather long but interesting) which explains, among other things, how a Goddess can be Virgin, Mother & Whore at once. It also has a few things to say about the relationship between Isis and Mary as well as the notion of perpetual virginity. Should keep you reading until Christmas:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/virgin.htm