Mary, and Jesus’ Birth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gorgias said:
In other words, you’re asserting cause and effect. Not my straw man, … just your very own words. 😉
Click to expand...
No. I’m asserting that one of the main requirements which the Early Church held for a woman to be considered a virgin, was that the hymen be intact. I never even insinuated that the rest of the requirements were not true with regards to Our Lady. Therefore, it remains your straw man.

Unless you can provide a case, in the early Church, where a woman whose hymen was not intact and yet was considered a virgin. Even if that woman met every other requirement, but not that one, none of the Early Church Fathers would have considered that woman a virgin.

And you can try to reinterpret the Church documents all you want, but that bit of data is prominent in their declaration.
dear
Click to expand...
No, not dear. I’m a guy.
 
It always seems strange when great thinkers of ancient times are so wedded to the arbitrary conventions of their age that they are willing to posit miracles from God to support their allegedly ironclad reasoning which proves it must be so.
They just cannot accept that their convention may not be not objective and reality could actually be otherwise.

Whether that convention be hymens and virginity, geocentrism and the inerrancy of the Bible, 2nd marriages and damning mortal sin and so on.

Why should God have to work a miracle to save the face of authorities who understandably could not think beyond the mistaken convictions of their age.

We who are no longer blinded by the limited horizon of that age have no similar excuse for repeating the same logic and demanding miracles of God that no longer seem to be required to preserve the theology that seemed to necessitate the miracle in the first place.
To do so displays a credulity that seems to match that of new age crystal believers.
 
This issue has had me mildly freaking out, haha!

However, the First Lateran Council stated:
“If anyone does not, according to the holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was begotten of God the Father, and gave birth to Him without injury, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned.” (https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DURBIRTH.HTM)
Click to expand...
The 1910 Old Catholic Encyclopedia states:
that the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of Jesus Christ, not merely preserving Mary’s integrity, but also causing Christ’s birth or external generation to reflect his eternal birth from the Father in this, that “the Light from Light” proceeded from his mother’s womb as a light shed on the world; that the “power of the Most High” passed through the barriers of nature without injuring them; that “the body of the Word” formed by the Holy Ghost penetrated another body after the manner of spirits. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm)
Click to expand...
It is safe to say that the Church teaches that Christ passed through the birth canal (the natural barriers!), as any other child would have. It is also safe to conclude Mary had been miraculously protected from injury - although by necessity, she experienced a true pregnancy, and some of its effects (after all, she had to nurse baby Jesus!)

The imagery of Jesus passing through like light through a glass is simply a metaphor. No where does it state Jesus “shown” through the womb. The plain text of Luke states that she gave birth. Luke was a physician, would have been more anatomically precise, were something significantly more elaborate than giving birth were part of the deposit of faith.
 
Last edited:
Ok, Runningdude, then what about the Popes, Church Fathers etc. who Tim Staples quoted?
 
Last edited:
I used crystals for a very short period of time during my phase when I was reading up on New Age.
 
The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary teaches that Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after giving birth to Jesus.

Why attempt to water down this doctrine?

Do we accept that God chose her to be his mother, accept the Incarnation of Jesus in the womb of Mary, accept that Jesus is true God and true man, accept the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus, the Assumption of Mary, but balk at the perpetual virginity?
 
The point is I want to know if Jesus was born via the birth canal in a miraculous manner or throughMarys stomach like some people have said over the years.
 
I cannot find any reliable sources that state Jesus was born in any manner than through the birth canal (the supernatural character being that Mary was protected from injury). Saint Luke himself says simply that Jesus was born. I am on mobile, so please excuse any typos.

The 1910 encyclopedia seems to concur. This suggests to me that alternative birth theories are simply a trend. Such trends have come and gone. Early writings suggest that such trends have existed since within the early days of Christianity.

I watched the video, I believe the Tim Staple one, and he simply says it is a church teaching that the birth had a supernatural character, but he does not elaborate to say that the church believes Christ divined himself out of Mary. The Lateran Council only requires belief that Mary was uninjured, which is no small feat!

This discussion crosses several different points. One is simply fixating on the retoric used, another is outdated medical beliefs. The statement that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth use a trinitary formula. This allows parralel construction with many Christian prayers. For example: Glory to the Father as it was, is now, and forever shall be. The formula emphasizes the eternal nature of God’s glory; it’s use with Mary emphasizes the purpetuity of her virginity.

The middle part is then conflated with Mary’s preservation from suffering the pains if childbirth. It presupposes a “physical virginity”, which is discredited scientifically. There is simply no way to “inspect” a woman to see if she is virgin. Not to get to gross, but women have even been able to give birth with their Hyman intact!

Thus, some authors, including the highest church authorities, used the language of the best physiological knowledge to emphasize Mary’s purity. That “physical virginity” is today known to not be detectable does not detract from Mary’s grace. We must simply find modern language to describe her grace!

In conclusion, we believe Mary to be born full of grace, and every moment of her life to be blessed. As the second Eve, being free of original sin, she experienced no pain during her child birth, and experienced no injury. She experienced ordinary natural changes to her body to accommodate her pregnancy. Language, culture, and knowledge of the anatomy evolve, and metaphor and descriptions from the past may no longer have meaning to modern ears. We must open the windows and breath fresh air into eternal truths in order to spread the Gospel.
 
Last edited:
De_Maria said:
No. I’m asserting that one of the main requirements which the Early Church held for a woman to be considered a virgin, was that the hymen be intact.
Click to expand...
So… if the hymen were not intact, she would still be a virgin? I agree. However, you do not:
40.png
De_Maria:
the Church Teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary. Therefore, the hymen must remain inviolate.
Click to expand...
I’ve pointed you to your own words multiple times. If you refuse to admit that you’ve painted yourself into a corner, have fun with your protests. We all know you’re backpedaling like mad on this one. 😉
De_Maria said:
No, not dear. I’m a guy.
Click to expand...
“dear dude”, then. :roll_eyes:
 
Gorgias said:
40.png
De_Maria:
No. I’m asserting that one of the main requirements which the Early Church held for a woman to be considered a virgin, was that the hymen be intact.
Click to expand...
So… if the hymen were not intact, she would still be a virgin? I agree. However, you do not:
Click to expand...
Read what I said and address that. You’re still relying on your straw men, non sequiturs and other false arguments.
40.png
De_Maria:
the Church Teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary. Therefore, the hymen must remain inviolate.
Click to expand...
I’ve pointed you to your own words multiple times.
Click to expand...
No. I’ve pointed out that you’ve attributed to me something that I didn’t say.
If you refuse to admit that you’ve painted yourself into a corner, have fun with your protests. We all know you’re backpedaling like mad on this one. 😉
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
It is you who refuse to admit that you’ve been proven wrong.
 
I wouldn’t give up your day job for one in exegesis/interpretation/scholarly research just yet 🙂
 
You mean she was totally chaste, some here think that virginity is denied when certain “injuries” are sustained 🙂
 
Mary gave birth to Jesus in the normal way that pregnant women at term do

shocking news

are you trying to cause trouble here?
 
there is nothing to address

Mary gave birth to Jesus

Mary survived that ; which at that date & time was certainly no guarantee

Mary lived to see her 33 year old Son crucified; and then Resurrected

Mary survived for a time beyond Jesus’ Ascension & then was Assumed into heaven
 
Last edited:
It seems that there are some people in this thread who don’t have a modern day scientific understanding of the hymen and it’s role (or lack there of, rather,) in determining virginity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top