The Full Meaning of the Virgin Birth

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I find that the scriptures, the parables and the Sacred Tradition all point to how God works; the principles by which He operates. The entire story of the Messiah is so fantastic that it could only be supernatural. Thus, considering it from a natural standpoint will yield no illumination.

As to Mary’s perpetual virginity, not one of the reformers doubted this. What has happened to Protestant belief in the 500 intervening years? Especially when there are three stories in scripture which relate an identical principle regarding creation and its relationship to the Creator. First, of course, is the virgin birth.

The second and third examples arrive after the Resurrection. In Matthew 28:1-6, we see that the Angel rolled the stone away, both relating and revealing that Christ had already risen. Yet, the stone had to be rolled away, as the tomb remained sealed. How did our Lord pass through?

Next, the upper room. Luke 24:36-43. Even though the door was locked, Jesus entered. Clearly, there was no damage, as they thought they saw a ghost - which would cause no damage, but the Lord offered his hands and side, and ate before them. Again, how did He pass through? Three points:

Mary’s virginity was intact, even though our Lord was born fully human.
The tomb was intact, even though Jesus’ resurrected human body had miraculously exited with the stone intact.
The door to the upper room was left intact, even though Jesus bodily entered through it.

All of the above explains a very simple principle: Creation yields to creator.
 
Last edited:
The ‘during and after’ teaching of the Church is, well, one that should be assigned to pius speculation of past years and no longer promulgated. Makes no sense, is impossible, and is disrespectful of all other women.
 
FiveLinden said:
The ‘during and after’ teaching of the Church is, well, one that should be assigned to pius speculation of past years and no longer promulgated. Makes no sense, is impossible, and is disrespectful of all other women.
Click to expand...
The conception and birth giving were miraculous. There are several dogmas of faith:
  • Mary is truly the Mother of God.
  • Mary was conceived without stain of Original sin.
  • Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the co-operation of man.
  • Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.
  • Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin.
  • Mary was a Virgin before, during, and after the Birth of Jesus Christ. 1
  • Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.
1 Notice the three stars on the icons of the Virgin Mary which represent virginity “before, during, and after”.
 
Last edited:
I have no objection to Catholics believing this. But I can’t see the point. An intact hymen is of absolutely no importance. The idea that somehow Jesus passed through it like ‘walking through a door’ does nothing , in my mind, to enhance the status of Mary or, indeed of Jesus. As an atheist I like the story of Jesus being born of Mary, a poor woman among poor women, into a family of no status (as it was seen) in destitute conditions. I love the idea of a homeless woman in such conditions being able to consider her chid the Messiah. But I can’t see the discussion of her physical condition as respectful. She was a woman.
 
FiveLinden said:
I have no objection to Catholics believing this. But I can’t see the point. An intact hymen is of absolutely no importance. The idea that somehow Jesus passed through it like ‘walking through a door’ does nothing , in my mind, to enhance the status of Mary or, indeed of Jesus. As an atheist I like the story of Jesus being born of Mary, a poor woman among poor women, into a family of no status (as it was seen) in destitute conditions. I love the idea of a homeless woman in such conditions being able to consider her chid the Messiah. But I can’t see the discussion of her physical condition as respectful. She was a woman.
Click to expand...
The divinity of Jesus Christ was revealed to mankind, and his mother’s giving birth to him without seed is the teaching since ancient times.
 
So are you saying that the divinity of Jesus hinges on, among other things, the Immaculate Conception? How then could some Protestants have gotten this point so wrong?

Apart from the above, might not the virginity of Mary as Catholic dogma lead to thinking that the biology of sex and the physical sexual act are somehow less than holy, or would this inference more likely be made mainly by those outside the Catholic faith?
 
Last edited:
Well that’s the point. As an atheist you obviously don’t see Jesus as divine, do you? He must be one of those ‘good teachers’ whose life was (in a vast conspiracy theory) then ‘mythologized’ in order to suit somebody (usually Constantine) and then the whole thing despite barbarian invasions, wars, ‘rational ages’ etc managed to spread through the world getting ‘bigger and bigger’ until finally the noble atheists of today have managed to ‘shout it down’ and bring it back to what it ‘really was’. Of COURSE you’re willing to cherry pick what YOU want to believe for YOUR narrative. The fact that even what you consider ‘good teaching’ is heavily biased and that, in fact, most atheists have twisted ‘good’ into ‘bad’ (It is ‘good’, nowadays, to accept all kinds of wrong things because it is ‘bad’ to ‘hurt someone’s feelings’ by not ‘accepting them fully’ etc) means that you can continually move the goalposts until you hope we’ll wind up with another ‘myth’ or ‘historical era’ in which people once believed about some ‘god’ but have now moved ‘beyond’.

. . . .

One is reminded of Fulton Sheen’s words, “Christianity has not been tried, and failed. It has rather been found ‘too hard’ and never tried at all.” While of course the exceptions of the saints (those known and the many unknown) ‘proves the rule’, his words are quite truthful. For the majority of atheists, agnostics, and even believers today, Christianity is indeed too hard and thus not being tried. Even among believers the ‘watering down’ of Christianity to either make it more ‘acceptable’ to the many ‘nones’ or to make it ‘easy enough to do’ (without the idea of miracles, sacrifice, and above all humility and obedience on our part) is endemic worldwide. . . .
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
So are you saying that the divinity of Jesus hinges on, among other things, the Immaculate Conception? How then could some Protestants have gotten this point so wrong?

Apart from the above, might not the virginity of Mary as Catholic dogma lead to thinking that the biology of sex and the physical sexual act are somehow less than holy, or would this inference more likely be made mainly by those outside the Catholic faith?
Click to expand...
The sexual thoughts and acts may be less than holy, for all passion requires temperance (Catechism 1809: “the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods”).

No, the Immaculate Conception was fitting not required. As Paul wrote in 1 Cor, Resurrection is most significant:
12 Now if Christ be preached, that he arose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again. 14 And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ; whom he hath not raised up, if the dead rise not again. 16 For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again. 17 And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins.18 Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ, are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
Click to expand...
 
stpurl said:
Well that’s the point. As an atheist you obviously don’t see Jesus as divine, do you?
Click to expand...
As a Catholic, I do. But as a Catholic scientist, I also have trouble with the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. Jesus is said to be fully man, and fully divine. One cannot be fully “man” without a Y-chromosome. The Holy Spirit is spirit, not material and chromosomes are material, not spirit. If Jesus only had an X-chromosome, He would have been female, not male. Clearly He is male.

Sometimes I think whoever transcribed the story mistook “perpetual chastity’” for “perpetual virginity’”. Or somehow “perpetual chastity” morphed into “perpetually pure” which became “perpetually virgin”. And I know one Catholic woman who says the perpetual virginity of Mary makes her feel diminished as a woman in comparison.

From a theological perspective I get the Virgin Birth: the story had to be written in a way that emphasized God’s omnipotence. I have heard more than one Catholic say that the Virgin Birth is a theological truth, not a historical one.

It’s an area of my faith that continues to give me considerable trouble. I respect the teaching, and resign myself to thinking that it’s because my simple human mind can’t wrap itself around God’s that I have trouble with it. In other words I assent to it, without fully believing it because I can’t understand it.

And I know, from my oblate community, the monks I know and other Catholics, I’m not alone in wrestling with this concept.
 
Last edited:
If God can multiply a few loaves and fishes to feed a huge crowd; if Jesus can walk on water and through closed doors, If God can provide water from a rock for Moses and manna from the sky, If Jesus can transform bread and wine into his body and blood, I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit can make a Y chromosome.
 
OraLabora said:
As a Catholic, I do. But as a Catholic scientist, I also have trouble with the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. Jesus is said to be fully man, and fully divine. One cannot be fully “man” without a Y-chromosome. The Holy Spirit is spirit, not material and chromosomes are material, not spirit. If Jesus only had an X-chromosome, He would have been female, not male. Clearly He is male.
Click to expand...
Human nature cannot be reduced to genetics. Christ inherited the royal blood of King David by his adoption by Joseph. Christ had no genetic relationship to David, but:
32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

Luke 1
Click to expand...
Thus, genetics are not relevant to Christ’s mission. Possessing a “Y” Chromosome from the Davidic line to establish his kingship has was never necessary. From this, we can presume that either his “Y” Chromosome was provided by the Holy Spirit, or any other possibility. The exact effect of the divine action on the physical world cannot be known. We presume the Incarnation within Mary’s womb was sufficient to give him a true human nature via Mary,

The virgin birth was a historical fact at the heart of the Christian faith. So too are the equally critical historical facts of Christ’s death and resurrection. These historical events are the foundation of the faith, that if proven false, would discredit the faith entirely.

Our faith is based on historical facts, not legends. Coming to terms with this is a part of maturing as a Christian.
 
Vico said:
Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.
Click to expand...
It is important to note that virginity cannot be observed or reduced to physical traits.

Mary’s virginity is intact by never having relations with any man, and enhanced by practicing perfect chastity during her earthly life. Like Christ bore scars from his execution on the Cross, Mary may well have bore stretch marks or other physical scars of child birth. None would effect her virginity in any manner.

None of the Evangelists felt it was necessary to the faith to elaborate on Mary’s process of giving birth. St. Luke, a physician who spoke in detail about the physical aspects of Christ’s miraculous healings, simply said that Mary had given birth. Nothing more than this is necessary for the faith. If there were more to say about the birth, he would have elaborated.

The fact of the virgin birth is a historical reality documented by the early apostles; it is not something that could be derived philosophically from natural law, as it is a miraculous exception to natural law. The church has confirmed infallibly that virgin birth is consistent with the faith and indeed the most fitting and proper manner that Christ could become incarnate, but our knowledge of it comes from the testament of those who knew Mary during her earthy lifetime. Anything more about the exact mode of that birth are historical details the church has no authority to speak on.
 
Last edited:
runningdude said:
48.png
Vico:
Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.
Click to expand...
It is important to note that virginity cannot be observed or reduced to physical traits.

Mary’s virginity is intact by never having relations with any man, and enhanced by practicing perfect chastity during her earthly life. Like Christ bore scars from his execution on the Cross, Mary may well have bore stretch marks or other physical scars of child birth. None would effect her virginity in any manner.

None of the Evangelists felt it was necessary to the faith to elaborate on Mary’s process of giving birth. St. Luke, a physician who spoke in detail about the physical aspects of Christ’s miraculous healings, simply said that Mary had given birth. Nothing more than this is necessary for the faith. If there were more to say about the birth, he would have elaborated.

The fact of the virgin birth is a historical reality documented by the early apostles; it is not something that could be derived philosophically from natural law, as it is a miraculous exception to natural law. The church has confirmed infallibly that virgin birth is consistent with the faith and indeed the most fitting and proper manner that Christ could become incarnate, but our knowledge of it comes from the testament of those who knew Mary during her earthy lifetime. Anything more about the exact mode of that birth are historical details the church has no authority to speak on.
Click to expand...
Mary’s virginity “in partu” is dogma sententia certa and means it was a miraculous birth. Saint Pope John Paul II said (24 May 1992 Address to the 16th centenary of the Plenary Council of Capua) Mary “gave birth truly and in a virginal way, whereby after her delivery she was still a virgin; a virgin […] also as regards what affect her physical integrity”.
 
I get and understand all that.

My point is, it still requires a leap of faith and that’s what I am having issues with at the moment.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
might not the virginity of Mary as Catholic dogma lead to thinking that the biology of sex and the physical sexual act are somehow less than holy, or would this inference more likely be made mainly by those outside the Catholic faith?
Click to expand...
This has never been a problem for those that had a correct understanding of the faith.
 
OraLabora said:
The Holy Spirit is spirit, not material and chromosomes are material, not spirit. If Jesus only had an X-chromosome, He would have been female, not male. Clearly He is male.
Click to expand...
It was a miracle. God created the first man so it should not be much of a problem when it comes to the Incarnation.
OraLabora said:
And I know, from my oblate community, the monks I know and other Catholics, I’m not alone in wrestling with this concept.
Click to expand...
This seems to be a trend.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Apart from the above, might not the virginity of Mary as Catholic dogma lead to thinking that the biology of sex and the physical sexual act are somehow less than holy, or would this inference more likely be made mainly by those outside the Catholic faith?
Click to expand...
Hello! Maybe not because the dogma is implementing that there’s nothing impossible with God. I watched a Protestant pastor giving a speech about the Birth of Jesus few days ago, he noted that “but nothing is impossible with God”. It also gave an impression that Mary, the bearer of our Lord is always pure.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top