Comments on: Proof Jesus was married. And was not resurrected.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:20:14 +0000

It also could mean that Jesus was part human. It’s pretty vague.

By: Jeff Milner

Jeff Milner — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:50:16 +0000

The Book of Mormon teaches that Mary became pregnant with Jesus, "after the manner of the flesh." That means she was not a virgin (by my interpretation). As for the news article, I think it's only making it into the media because James Cameron is involved—and anyway does it really matter if they have proof? When you're trying to disprove a tautology it's not like evidence is going to deter the eternally convicted. See Science Vs. Faith.

By: Pewsitter

Pewsitter — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:18:23 +0000

Is Alea alluring to the LDS old school tradition that God and Mary were “sealed” and had sex the natural way with Joesph being only an earthly husband? Thus she was considered a virgin since she was sealed before having sex.

By: rick

rick — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:41:25 +0000

Kim, I’ve actually read somewhere about variations on the theme that God had the power to make Mary ‘born again’ shortly after finding herself to be be pregnant; making a traditional impregnation compatible with Mary being a virgin (since she had not had sex since her new rebirth). Kinda far out there dogmatically, but since this is all speculation anyway. :)

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:17:54 +0000

Tradition? It’s the first I’ve heard of it.

By: alea

alea — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:35:04 +0000

you don’t have to believe it’s extra-marital. They were married by Gabriel, as LDS tradition asserts. I don’t think anyone, since Talmage’s statements in Jesus the Christ, can claim that the Mormon conception (pun intended) of the impregnation of Mary was quite naturalistic. Virgin birth isn’t really an LDS belief.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:27:55 +0000

In order for Jesus’s birth to have been a virgin birth, it would have had to been some variation of the latter.

By: rick

rick — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:22:19 +0000

"I think rick was responding to aleaâ€s suggestion that God may not have DNA" It's either that or you have to believe that Mary had an extra-marital affair and literally had sex with God... ...or Jesus was the first in-vitro conception, I guess.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:55:22 +0000

Unless Zeezrom was a baby, JM, then the baby teeth go nowhere:

. . . even as we now are at this time . . .

ltbugaf, I think rick was responding to alea’s suggestion that God may not have DNA.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:52:08 +0000

What makes rick conclude there weren’t two donors? Christ is the literal son of God. The Father of his spirit is the Father of his body.