Virgin Birth Based on Outdated Beliefs About Conception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wesrock said:
This bolded is rather what I don’t believe follows at all. It’s like the history channel trying to explain the virgin birth by a natural parthenogenesis.
Click to expand...
or that it was ALIENS :alien:
I stopped watching the history channel because of the 24/7 ancient aliens nonsense.
 
Mark121359 said:
Do you have any evidence that shows that the Church condems Aquinas’s writings?
Click to expand...
Do you have any that the Church herself supports the “humility theory”? (Aside from the handful of names you’ve cited.)

Verse 20 is especially difficult to reconcile with the “humility theory”. If Matthew is telling us in v.18 that Joseph knew it was a miraculous conception (and not just that the envangelist knows or that we readers know), then why does the angel have to tell Joseph “do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her”? The implication seems to be that he’s afraid because he thinks that’s not the case. The way it’s written, the angel is confirming the supernatural conception and not merely soothing Joseph’s nerves…
LilyM said:
The same Angelic Doctor who believed Mary was NOT entirely sanctified from the moment of her conception (ie that she was not Immaculately Conceived)? I’d take my chances.
Click to expand...
That’s a horse of a different color. His problem with the Immaculate Conception was based on a misunderstanding of human biology, based on the prevalent scientific thought of the day. The “humility theory” has no such analogous dynamic.
 
Gorgias said:
Do you have any that the Church herself supports the “humility theory”? (Aside from the handful of names you’ve cited.)
Click to expand...
Nope. And I never claimed to have any either. Just brought it into the discussion to show that not every theologian or Church father believed that Joseph assumed that the Virgin was unfaithful.
 
The plain reading of the Gospel is that Joseph knew Mary had conceived miraculously.

Why did Joseph not divorce her publicly? Because he was “just”. This is made clear that the reason Joseph does not divorce her publicly is because he is a “just” man. However, it is not unjust to divorce someone who has been unfaithful. It would only be unjust to divorce someone for being unfaithful if you knew they were not unfaithful. Therefore the Gospel tells us openly that Joseph knew that Mary had concieved miraculously and was not unfaithful. If Joseph thought she was unfaithful he would be perfectly justified in divorcing her publicly.

Joseph clearly meant to create some plausible excuse to live apart from her, considering himself unworthy to live with her and the Child.
 
Last edited:
Except that the Angel reassured him about Mary’s pregnancy. Said angel wouldn’t do this if Joseph knew.

The humility theory makes Joseph look like a deadbeat “foster” dad, not a just man
 
Last edited:
The angel was reassuring Joseph that he had been chosen by God to be the foster father of the child.

Please do not call Joseph a “deadbeat”.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
The humility makes Joseph look like a deadbeat “foster” dad, not a just man
Click to expand...
In the new book Consecration to St. Joseph by Fr. Donald Calloway, he makes a very good case that Joseph did know it was a miracle pregnancy and that he was reacting in humility, feeling that he was not worthy to be the foster father of the Christ.

Fr. Calloway quotes different saints who have held this position also.

So in all charity humility in a man does not equal deadbeat.
 
Last edited:
That’s what your theory entails.

Joseph is shirking responsibility if he knows but wants to put Mary away. So Joseph isn’t righteous but a deadbeat in your scenario.

Let’s analyze what the Angel said. “Joseph, Son of David, fear not to take Mary your wife into your home. The child she has conceived is of the Holy Spirit.”

The reassurance is about Mary’s pregnancy, not of his responsibility.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
So in all charity humility in a man does not equal deadbeat.
Click to expand...
That’s not humility.

If anything, that’s false humility. He’s shirking responsibility in this scenario.

What the text clearly says is that Joseph was reassured of Mary’s purity and the nature of her Son was revealed to Him.
 
You are reading something in there that is not there. Joseph would not have simply abandoned Mary. He would have supported her financially from afar, while maintaining a plausible excuse (like necessary work) to avoid living under the same roof as her because he did not think himself worthy residing with her.

The theory is not proven, but it is valid. If it is true (you must admit it is possible) then you should not say it makes Joseph a “deadbeat”. We know Joseph is not a “deadbeat” no matter which interpretation happens to be true.

I know your intention was onviously not to call Joseph a deadbeat but you unfortunately did by accident. I am simply asking you to be more careful with your language.
 
Useless said:
You are reading something in there that is not there.
Click to expand...
I’m taking your supposition at face value.
Useless said:
He would have supported her financially from afar, while maintaining a plausible excuse (like necessary work) to avoid living under the same roof as her because he did not think himself worthy residing with her.
Click to expand...
He was of a mind to divorce her quietly. Ties were severed.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
40.png
Julius_Caesar:
Joseph was reassured of Mary’s purity and the nature of her Son was revealed to Him.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say those words. That is how you yourself interpret what the Scripture says.
Click to expand...
Let’s read it again.

Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her."

Matthew 1:20 NABRE

The Angel does exactly what I summarized. It’s you who’s reading into it.
 
Augustine, Chrystotom, Justin Martyr, ad many others held to this.
 
YHWH_Christ said:
Many historians and scholars believe the virgin birth as found in the Gospels is based off of ancient ideas about how children were conceived… How do we refute this?
Click to expand...
Nothing needs to be refuted because the question rests on a false premise.

The virgin birth has been revealed by God. Also, Mary was still alive and spent time with the apostles so she was perfectly capable of clarifying whether she was a virgin (and ever-virgin) or not – and she was.

The dogma isn’t based on ancient belief about biology. It’s based on the concrete objective history of a woman the apostles personally knew and could talk to. She was a virgin her whole life.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest not only that Mary wasn’t a virgin, but seems to suggest she was probably a vicious liar. Quite an ugly thought.
 
Last edited:
Julius_Caesar said:
The Angel does exactly what I summarized.
Click to expand...
I see.
Julius_Caesar said:
It’s you who’s reading into it
Click to expand...
I’m not reading anything into it. I am realizing that our own private interpretation may not always be right and some saints and Catholic theologians in the Church teach different than what you say.

I believe it could have happened either way.

I do highly recommend Father Calloways book, Consecration to St. Joseph.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
I’m not reading anything into it. I am realizing that our own private interpretation may not always be right and some saints and Catholic theologians in the Church teach different than what you say.
Click to expand...
What the text says can be misunderstood even by theologians and saints. Origen, one of the authorities you cite, castrated himself because of what Jesus said on purity.
 
The Angel says nothing other than Joseph should not be afraid to take Mary into his home (could be taken either way) and that the Child was concieved by the holy Spirit (does not mean Joseph was not already aware of this).

Would it have been unjust to divorce an unfaithful woman?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top