Virgin Birth of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter IesusDeus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IesusDeus

Guest
This may sound like a strange question.

We believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that Mary remained a virgin.

As for the details:

Do we know if God fertilized Mary’s egg, or if God implanted a zygote in the womb of Mary?
Or we don’t know? (It remains a mystery.)

I would tend to think about the former, although this is pure theory from my part. What does the Church teach?
 
God fertilized Mary’s egg. If he simply implanted a zygote, then mary would not have been the biological mother of God, but an adoptive mother. (The Heresy Nestorianism.) Remember that surrogate mothership is a grave sin. Neither God nor Mary ever committed any sin!

Hope that helps.

Josh
 
40.png
threej_lc:
Remember that surrogate mothership is a grave sin.
Click to expand...
I have never heard that. Can you give a source for that?

I don’t think it would fall under Nestorianism. Nestorianism said that there were two persons of Christ, a human and a Divine. They claimed that Mary was only the mother of the human person of Christ.
 
40.png
jimmy:
I have never heard that. Can you give a source for that?

I don’t think it would fall under Nestorianism. Nestorianism said that there were two persons of Christ, a human and a Divine. They claimed that Mary was only the mother of the human person of Christ.
Click to expand...
If you search on “surrogate mother” on the forums, I think its been discussed a bunch already. But for the quick and easy answer from the CCC:

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ “right to become a father and a mother only through each other.”

You are quite right about the details of Nestorianism. Admitedly this does not follow under the EXACT teachings of the heresy, although I think its falls within its bounds.

Josh
 
40.png
Ignatius:
That’s what three_j said. Here are links to two discussions on the subject.

newadvent.org/cathen/10755a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/01150a.htm

God Bless.
Click to expand...
I hate to go against my backup, but Jimmy was right in his rebuttle of me. To be technical (In a very dumbed-down, Josh sort of way):

Nestorianism:
Mary was the natural, biological mother of the Human perosn of Jesus. She had nothing to do with the divine nature of Jesus. They were consubstantiated together, of which Mary only had only one part.

(False because mary is mother of his divine nature as well.)

Adoptionism:
Jesus was originally fully human, son of Mary. Then God adopted him as his own son as well, in a sense “posessing” him with his grace to be holy and pure in God’s will.

Neither directly relates to Mary adopting Jesus in his entire self. I just extended nestorianism in my comment to having Mary adopt Christ’s human nature in addition to His divine.

…hope that makes sense.
Josh
 
40.png
threej_lc:
I hate to go against my backup, but Jimmy was right in his rebuttle of me. To be technical (In a very dumbed-down, Josh sort of way):

Nestorianism:
Mary was the natural, biological mother of the Human perosn of Jesus. She had nothing to do with the divine nature of Jesus. They were consubstantiated together, of which Mary only had only one part.

(False because mary is mother of his divine nature as well.)

Adoptionism:
Jesus was originally fully human, son of Mary. Then God adopted him as his own son as well, in a sense “posessing” him with his grace to be holy and pure in God’s will.

Neither directly relates to Mary adopting Jesus in his entire self. I just extended nestorianism in my comment to having Mary adopt Christ’s human nature in addition to His divine.

…hope that makes sense.
Josh
Click to expand...
Yes, I thought that was what you were originally indicating.
 
Ummm,
Mary is mother of the Person Jesus. She had nothing to do with any spiritual nature of him, just as my mother had nothing to do with my spirit (which is only human). God is the source and the creator of the spirit.

When we speak of a mother, we always speak of the mother of the unity , body and soul. Hence Mary is the mother of a person who has a divine nature, and a human nature. It is not right to say that Mary is the mother of the second person of the Trinity in a divorced sort of way. Mary is not the mother of his divine nature, but his incarnate person.

A human person is not a nature, but has a nature.
The human nature was taken from mary, the divine nature is God.

Nestorius was using logic which led to the contradictory position that two hypostases (equivalent to two persons, although Nestorius may not have realized that) existed.
He in effect was claiming a divine person joined a human person.
This is not correct in the case of Jesus. There is only one person.
I think it far better to just say Jesus has two natures in one person. Mary is mother of the person. (stop there).
 
The original question is interesting. Two things: in nature virgin conceptions happen. The egg may spontaneously become a zygote, at which time a FEMALE is always born since the Y Chromasome is not present. I am not aware of any virgin conceptions occuring naturally in humans.

Secondly:
In the case of Mary/Jesus, unless she was a gymnandadorf, (I doubt it), the Y chromasome had to be supplied somehow for Jesus to be a man.
God has no flesh, of himself, to fertilize with, so how this came about is a mystery other than being the Power of the Holy Spirit.
 
40.png
threej_lc:
If you search on “surrogate mother” on the forums, I think its been discussed a bunch already. But for the quick and easy answer from the CCC:

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ “right to become a father and a mother only through each other.”

You are quite right about the details of Nestorianism. Admitedly this does not follow under the EXACT teachings of the heresy, although I think its falls within its bounds.

Josh
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info.

I realize that Nestorius had tried to say that he did not admitt two persons, but his theology said so, or at least lead to the belief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top