Building a mythic hero

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Nitpick: The mother can't be a virgin and a mother if she's had intercourse with a man or a god, Asta. She can have been a virgin before she conceived, but not before she gave birth, if sexual congress was involved. But sure, your reading is broader and probably more useful! :)

The Virgin Birth (and its corollary, the perpetual virginity of Mary) is quite different from Greek stories of Zeus dallying with mortal women.

It's worth noting that some of the deity origin stories have parthenogenesis of one form or another - Athena springing forth from her Father's head, fully formed, is a form of parthenogenetic reproduction - albeit a fanciful one.

Uranus, Pontus and Oreia were all said by some sources to have been born of Gaia without copulation, but by the normal means of pregnancy and birth.

Tefnut and Shu are products of Atum's masturbation, or a sneeze, or an expectoration, depending upon which era's texts one consults... equally as fanciful as Athena. But at least, in some versions, getting that they're born of sexual matter.

Born of a mother who had not known a father sexually is a common element amongst several panthons with a primordial mother-goddess. But it's almost always within the ranks of full gods, rather than heroes.

The Christian version really is predicated upon the duality of Spirit and Body, and that the Virgin Birth is the sending of spirit inseminating the body. I recall reading of a non-christian demigod origin where the mortal mother conceived by the hearing of a song by a fertility god. It's a clear parallel.

Remember that, for the most part, Early Classical Greeks were pretty much concretist, tho' certain greek philosophers introduced the duality of Essence and Accident - the platonic ideal and the physical presence. We experience the accident, which is prototyped in the essence and is a shadow of that essence. (See Plato, the Cave)

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

It's worth noting that some of the deity origin stories have parthenogenesis of one form or another - Athena springing forth from her Father's head, fully formed, is a form of parthenogenetic reproduction - albeit a fanciful one.

Uranus, Pontus and Oreia were all said by some sources to have been born of Gaia without copulation, but by the normal means of pregnancy and birth.

Tefnut and Shu are products of Atum's masturbation, or a sneeze, or an expectoration, depending upon which era's texts one consults... equally as fanciful as Athena. But at least, in some versions, getting that they're born of sexual matter.

Born of a mother who had not known a father sexually is a common element amongst several panthons with a primordial mother-goddess. But it's almost always within the ranks of full gods, rather than heroes.

The Christian version really is predicated upon the duality of Spirit and Body, and that the Virgin Birth is the sending of spirit inseminating the body. I recall reading of a non-christian demigod origin where the mortal mother conceived by the hearing of a song by a fertility god. It's a clear parallel.

Remember that, for the most part, Early Classical Greeks were pretty much concretist, tho' certain greek philosophers introduced the duality of Essence and Accident - the platonic ideal and the physical presence. We experience the accident, which is prototyped in the essence and is a shadow of that essence. (See Plato, the Cave)

Once you postulate gods that reproduce like humans you have to figure out how the first one came, which necessarily requires either spontaneous generation or a mysterious Greater God That Doesn't Usually Appear In Stories.

[jason taylor]

[QUOTE=combatmedic;1579290





The Virgin Birth (and its corollary, the perpetual virginity of Mary) is [/QUOTE]

Fortunately, not being Catholic I am not required to wish the later on her. The former would have been hard enough, though I suspect if they thought Joseph was the real father they would not have come down to hard on her. You never know though.

[Anders]

The Law requires that a husband who discovers his wife is not a virgin on her wedding night to take her to her father's doorstep and stone her. Unless he raped her, in which case he is forced to marry her.

[robkelk]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

The Virgin Birth (and its corollary, the perpetual virginity of Mary) is quite different from Greek stories of Zeus dallying with mortal women.

The "perpetual virginity of Mary" doesn't match the source - reference Matthew 1:25 (in which it is said Joseph "knows" Mary after the birth of Jesus) and Acts 1:14 (which uses the Greek "adelphoi" to refer to Jesus' brothers).

So, like many of the mythic-hero myths, this origin was a one-off.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

The Law requires that a husband who discovers his wife is not a virgin on her wedding night to take her to her father's doorstep and stone her. Unless he raped her, in which case he is forced to marry her.

The passage makes it obvious that Torah was sometimes fudged and that that wasn't always held a bad thing.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

The passage makes it obvious that Torah was sometimes fudged and that that wasn't always held a bad thing.

Well, yes. Kings and Chronicles make it very clear that such fudging was the reason for the fall of Judah and Israel. Man was too corrupt to follow God's Laws. But if you believe in the Laws' God-given origin they say some very interesting things about God's sense of justice. In fact we learn from Jesus that the Law was really much too lenient, at least in certain ways.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Well, yes. Kings and Chronicles make it very clear that such fudging was the reason for the fall of Judah and Israel. Man was too corrupt to follow God's Laws. But if you believe in the Laws' God-given origin they say some very interesting things about God's sense of justice. In fact we learn from Jesus that the Law was really much too lenient, at least in certain ways.

That part of the comment was meant to be sociological not theological. But if you must know, Deut 22: 13 clearly implies that the groom was allowed to refrain from pressing charges.

[Anders]

After checking, yes, that would seem to be correct. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by robkelk

The "perpetual virginity of Mary" doesn't match the source - reference Matthew 1:25 (in which it is said Joseph "knows" Mary after the birth of Jesus) and Acts 1:14 (which uses the Greek "adelphoi" to refer to Jesus' brothers).

So, like many of the mythic-hero myths, this origin was a one-off.

Actually, no, it doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

You are bringing up old errors which were dealt with a long, long time ago.


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

On the second page, scroll down to the section on her perpetual virginity. It is all explained quite clearly.


BTW, Martin Luther accepted Mary's perpetual virginity and John Calvin thought it not appropriate to question the matter.