Did Mary actually give "birth" to Christ?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Sacrament o:

Did God’s semen fertilize Mary’s egg?

If yes, then Jesus had both God’s DNA and Mary’s DNA. Being made up in part of Mary’s DNA, how then could Jesus be equal to God?

If God didn’t fertilize Mary’s egg and instead placed a fertilized egg in Mary, was Mary just an incubator?

“God is Spirit”​

Human beings and animals are not spirit - they have bodies

Mammals are animals, therefore they have bodies, which include in their design reproductive systems (including organs for reproduction) as well as for the excretion of bodily waste matter.
Mammals have glands, ducts, secondary sexual characteristics,

And man is a mammal. Therefore, grows, ages, matures, passes through adolescence to adulthood and (one hopes) grows up. And finally dies.

In short, God

• does not have a body
• is not a mammal
• does not develop bodily
• does not age
• does not have any bodily organs
• does not eat or drink or copulate or excrete
• does not develop in any way whatever
• does not mature
• is not begotten or conceived
• is not born
• does not age
• does die

The Incarnation is not about how God had sexual intercourse with Mary - no sexual intercourse is involved. God has no DNA, because God is not descended from any previous generations of gods; so has neither inherited any chromosomes, nor has any to pass on; for God has no genetic make-up. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ghosty:

Yes, we all know that, but it doesn’t mean that she didn’t give birth the normal way. Virgin does not mean intact hymen.

Something is wrong with any thinking about the Incarnation that makes it to be less than fully real - so it is hard to see why she should not have the full array of obstetric discomforts and inconveniences that any young mother might go through in the course of pregnancy and childbirth.​

ISTM that her virginity is in some danger of being so much emplhasised that the reality of the Incarnation - which is a far more important teaching, and is one of the guarantees of the reality of talk about her - is in some danger of being falsified. Her privileges can’t be allowed to get in the way of what the NT says about her Son: that He was a man like us in all things, sin only excepted. If this was true of Him - much more was she as truly human as any other woman. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Protoevangelium of James?
Origen citing that work as a prooftext?

Not very convincing

It isn’t - unless “Planet of the Apes” and “King Kong” are to be regarded as good sources for the history of New York. All three works are fictions, which use a few facts.​

In any event, you have not answered either the lead-off questions;

(W)as Jesus “born” or did he just “appear” next to Mary?
(D)oes the church know for certain?

He was born - that other idea is hopelessly destructive of anything but Christian Science.​

Or mine;

If Mary was spared pain in childbirth, was she also spared the other aspects of the “curse” of Eve (Genesis 3:16)?

Peace

One could build a good case for saying Mary was spared labour pains - and also, for saying that she went through them like any other mother. I can’t see any reason to think she was spared them. It is after all, Jesus, not she, Who is the Author of our salvation.​

 

[puzzleannie]

the Creed says that we believe Jesus Christ was “born of the Virgin Mary” so yes, he was really born, and yes, Mary retained her virginal state.