From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:41:08 -0600
C. Perry writes > Bill, what constitutes a loss of virginity, "knowing" a
man, or having a baby? I surmise the former. (Since this is a one-time
event, we certainly have no precedence!)
Perry,
I certainly agree with you concerning the lack of precedence. Mary
conceived without having "known" a man. She was a virgin; something
happened to her, which had never happened before.
My statement and belief has to do with a woman's -- or, in the case of
Mary, a girl's -- hymen. A girl with her hymen intact is still a virgin, no
if-ands-or-buts about it. Certainly, this is what Mary had in mind when she
questioned the possibility of her pregnancy: she had not had any sexual
relations; she was yet a virgin -- her hymen was still intact; therefore,
how could she be pregnant?
Joseph, having believed his visitor, took Mary to be his wife, but he did
not have sex with her while she was pregnant ("[He] knew her not till she
had brought forth her firstborn son"); hence, Mary's hymen remained intact
throughout the pregnancy. It was the birth of Jesus which changed all that.
This, too, is most certainly the case (a case, as well, without
precedence): In giving birth to Jesus, Mary's hymen was torn -- her "veil"
was ripped in two; hence she was no longer a "virgin" in the technical
sense of the word. True enough, she had not yet had any sexual relations
when she birthed Jesus; nevertheless, she lost her virginity in the
birthing process.
Bill
PS You are no doubt aware of the Roman Catholic doctrine which sets forth
the "perpetual virginity" of Mary, that even after she gave birth to Jesus,
she remained a virgin; i.e., her hymen remained intact throughout her
lifetime.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
> Bill, what constitutes a loss of virginity, "knowing" a man, or having a
> baby? I surmise the former.
> (Since this is aone-time event, we certainly have no precedence!)
>
> Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I
know
> not a man?
>
> Matt 1:24-25: Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of
the
> Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till
she
> had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
>
> Perry
>
> >From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: <[email protected]>
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
> >Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:07:03 -0600
> >
> >After the birth of Christ, Mary was still a virgin. Surely we all
> >believe this !!
> >
> >I don't. After his conception, Mary was still a virgin. After his
birth,
> >... well, think about it.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [email protected]
> > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 8:26 PM
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
> >
> >
> > The answers DH has given in this post should end the matters under
> >discussion. I would agree, that after whatever happened to Mary to
bring
> >the fetus that would be God/man into existencem the development and
birth
> >of that infant was quite natural.
> >
> > If DH believes more than what he said, well, he didn't say it in
this
> >post. What as been written, is clear enough.
> >
> > After the birth of Christ, Mary was still a virgin. Surely we
all
> >believe this !!
> >
> > Church leaders often speak from their personal convictions.
> >
> > 7 ft Quakers is a part of this discussion because
> >....................................? I would say that whatever the
> >reason, DH is not a co-believer in the Quaker theory.
> >
> > How can anyone believe in 7 Quakers? For the same reason one might
> >believe that King James was the first Evangelical or that the KJV is
> >inspired AS A TRANSLATION or that the Law is still in full effect as an
> >attachment to our salvation or ....................................well
,
> >you get the point, no?
> >
> > In debate, one does not need to disprove something that has not been
> >evidenced. And, certainly, not to one's "satisfaction." One of the
> >greatest rock n roll bands of all time sings "can't get no
satisfaction."
> > And that seems to be the path taken in the Dean-o ,,.......... DH
> >discussion.
> >
> > JD
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [email protected]
> > Sent: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:05:27 -0700
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
> >
> >
> > cd 10/20: Then-pray tell me- What does the term Natural/Trational
> >Conception mean Dave? And how can one whom produces
Naturally/Tradionaly
> >still be a virgin?
> >
> > DAVEH: I explained what it means to me in a post yesterday, Dean.
But
> >I will briefly explain it again to make sure you understand it.
> >
> > To me, natural is the process whereby genetic coding is used to
> >define a person. I believe Jesus is literally the Son of both God and
Mary
> >due to his genes and/or DNA being related to their genes or DNA.....if
that
> >is the proper way to describe it. (I never was much good at biology.)
> >
> > You then said.......
> >
> > You are saying that the "HG" had a natural sexually act with Mary
that
> >conceived Jesus.
> >
> > .........No, that is not what I am saying. While I do believe the
> >power of the Holy Ghost was an important factor in the conception of
Jesus,
> >I do not believe that the HG conceived Jesus. To repeat.....I do not
> >believe God (nor the HG) had physical sex with Mary, and I do believe
she
> >remained a virgin at the time of the birth of Jesus. Yet I do believe
> >there is a genetic link between our Father and Heaven and
Jesus.....making
> >him literally the Son of God. Does that make sense to you, Dean?
> >
> > Now....regarding your comment.........
> >
> > .And how can anyone with a reasonable mind believe a person who
claims t
> >here are 7 ft Quakers on the moon
> >
> > .........I do not recall discussing that. You've been tossing that
> >claim out on TT recently as if it is something I should know about, but
I
> >don't. I googled it and didn't come up with anything either. So help
me
> >out, Brother Dean....please explain what you think I should know about
it.
> >
> > Now Dean, the ball is in your court, as JD would say..........
> >
> > Now -pray tell how am I wrong-show me to my satisfaction-and I will
beg
> >forgiveness of making this claim against your theology.
> >
> > ........I hope my above explanation helps you understand why I think
the
> >things you've been saying about my beliefs are misleading and not true.
If
> >you continue to have any questions about what I believe or why I
believe
> >such, just ask. I'll gladly answer your sincere questions.
> >
> > Dean Moore wrote:
> >
> >
> > .........I did not see it. What I did see were comments by
leaders
> >that said to the effect that the conception of Mary was a natural
process.
> >To me, and other LDS folks I know, that means that the traditional
> >conception of Mary by some magical snapping of the fingers by the HG
(or
> >some such mystical way of conceiving) is incorrect. Furthermore, the
> >leaders making comments regarding this that I've seen were often times
> >surmising their own beliefs (which are highly respected by other
Mormons,
> >but not necessarily considered doctrinal by official standards), rather
> >than quoting LDS doctrine which is found in the Standard Works.
> >
> > So Perry....dig out the quote that Kevin made saying........
> >
> > sex between God and Mary was physical
> >
> > ..........and then you will have a point that bears merit. IF you
> >cannot do that, then you or anybody e lse saying that is what I believe
is
> >simply lying.< BR>
> > BTW.........As I have previously explained several times on
TT,
> >not only do I not believe that (sex between God and Mary was physical),
but
> >official LDS theology teaches that Mary was a virgin, which is hardly
> >possible IF the sex between God and Mary was physical. So, for
> >anti-Mormons to continue to perpetuate that lie stretches the limits of
> >incredibility.
> >
> >
> > For you to warn TTers from getting confused by anything I
> >say.....seems to me that the blind are leading the blind, so to speak..
If
> >you really want to exercise *Damage control* Dean, perhaps you should
first
> >consider correcting your own errors, lest you deceive them with
outright
> >lies. Otherwise, the *Damage *will be to your own credibility.
> >
> >
> > cd 10/20: Then-pray tell me- What does the term Natural/Trational
> >Conception mean Dave? And how can one whom produces
Naturally/Tradionaly
> >still be a virgin?And what does Luke 12:10 mean when it says" And
everybody
> >wh o speaks a word against the son of man, it will be forgivi ng him,
but
> >he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit,it will not be forgiving him
> >(ASV).And how can anyone with a reasonable mind believe a person who
claims
> >there are 7 ft Quakers on the moon and ignore this warning- given by
Jesus
> >himself- to help us not commit this sin of speaking against the Holy
Ghost
> >-as doing the wrong of having sex with someone they are not married to
> >(ie.fornication)-to our own hurt.You are saying that the "HG" had a
natural
> >sexually act with Mary that conce ived Jesus. Now -pray tell how am I
> >wrong-show me to my satisfaction-and I will beg forgiveness of making
this
> >claim against your theology.
> >
> >
> >--
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >Dave Hansen
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >http://www.langlitz.com
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >If you wish to receive
> >things I find interesting,
> >I maintain six email lists...
> >JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
> >STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
