Clauso Utero

[DHK]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It would have made for a much more unusual birth if He had left everything intact...

Thank you. You guys are the ones claiming a perfectly normal birth, not me. Jesus' conception and birth were miraculous as prophecied in Holy Scripture by the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." </font>[/QUOTE]Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Take your choice. You are either twisting Scripture, adding to it; or reading into it things that are not there. Either way you are in the wrong.

God said he will give us a sign. The sign would simply be that a virgin would conceive and bear a son: nothing more, and nothing less.
It doesn't say how he was born, that is, anything about the hymen of his mother, or any other miraculous event that may be associated with his birth. You are adding to the Scripture when you claim such things. It is wrong. Stick to the Scriptures.
DHK

 

[Kathryn]

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign:
Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son , and she will call His name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14


This is the virgin birth. Nothing about a perfectly normal birth here. This was the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ__the word made flesh.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign:
Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son , and she will call His name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14


This is the virgin birth. Nothing about a perfectly normal birth here. This was the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ__the word made flesh.

So, what is the problem Kathryn? All of this was fulfilled, exactly as it was written without altering the Bible as Catholics have done. Christ was born, by a virgin, in a perfectly normal way. Case closed. There is no need to read anything further into the text. Mary remained a virgin, by definition of what a virgin is. When the Scripture indicates that Joseph "knew her," then she no longer was a virgin. When Mat.13:55 indicates that she had other children, we know that she was not a perpetual virgin, and it is a perpetual lie of the Catholic Church to keep referring to Mary as "the Virgin Mary," for she is not.
DHK

 

[Kathryn]

Christ was born, by a virgin, in a perfectly normal way. Case closed.

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign:
Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son , and she will call His name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14

The virgin birth spoken in Holy Scripture is not a "perfectly normal birth". It is a miraculous birth without reading anything more into Holy Scripture than what is prophecied here. Prophecy was not fortelling of a "perfectly normal" event. The Catholic Church accepts the virgin conception and birth of Jesus Christ as prophecied. As a Baptist you can say "case closed", and believe anything you choose. You believe yourself to have that liberty. I am finished anyway here, at least for now.

 

[John Gilmore]

I agree Eric. When I first heard about this doctrine I assumed it was a Catholic doctrine, as it appears to be one that would be devised to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary. But then Kathryn corrected me and said that it wasn't a Catholic doctrine at all. She attributed to Luther.
John Gilmore answered with quotes from Luther and denied that the doctrine was from Luther. So where from, and why does this doctrine exist?DHK

Thomas Aquinas writes hundreds of years before the birth of Luther, "Some have held that Christ, in His Birth, assumed the gift of "subtlety," when He came forth from the closed womb of a virgin." So obviously the doctrine did not originate with Luther.

If Martin Luther believed in this concept, the Lutheran Church would still hold to such a cardinal doctrine.Ray Berrian

In some of his writings, Luther defends "Clauso Utero" although, in other writings, he does not. Lutheran Church doctrines are not based on Luther but on such writings of the church fathers that have been unanimously approved by the entire church. The only mention of "Clauso Utero" in the approved writings is in the Formula of Concord which quotes Luther: This [spiritual] mode He used when He rose from the closed [and sealed] sepulcher, and passed through the closed door [to His disciples], and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, and, as it is believed, when He was born of His mother. IMHO, the Formula of Concord considers "Clauso Utero" to be a pious opinion that may be accepted or rejected by Lutherans.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
It is not now, nor never has been, scriptural since Mary went on to have children with Joseph after the birth of Jesus.

To be fair, that's not clear in sctipture. It's implied, but it is entirely possible that the persons mentioned as Jesus brothers and sisters are, by what we understand, his cousins, since they hebrews used the same word. However, that being said, scripture does records that Mary remain a virgn until the birth of Jesus, so that also implies that she did not remain a virgin her entire life. Now, i happen to believe that Mary and Joseph went on th have other chirdren, and that Jesus' brothers and sisters were indeed his brothers and sisters, but that's not 100% scripturally affirmed.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
It is not now, nor never has been, scriptural since Mary went on to have children with Joseph after the birth of Jesus.

To be fair, that's not clear in sctipture. It's implied, but it is entirely possible that the persons mentioned as Jesus brothers and sisters are, by what we understand, his cousins, since they hebrews used the same word. However, that being said, scripture does records that Mary remain a virgn until the birth of Jesus, so that also implies that she did not remain a virgin her entire life. Now, i happen to believe that Mary and Joseph went on th have other chirdren, and that Jesus' brothers and sisters were indeed his brothers and sisters, but that's not 100% scripturally affirmed. </font>[/QUOTE]It is quite clear in Scripture. You are stating a Roman Catholic argument which has been amply refuted in previous threads. The Greek has a very specific word for cousin. If Mat.13:55 had meant for these individuals to be referred to as cousins, the word for cousins would have been used, but it wasn't--the word adelphos, meaning brother, was used. In fact, adelphos is used over 330 times in the Bible and is translated brother, or its plural every time. It refers to brothers, not cousins. If it referred to cousins it would say cousins, but it doesn't. It is as simple as that. The context speaks of his immediate family--mother, father, brothers, sisters--not cousins. To force cousins into this context would be to do injustice to the Scriptures.
DHK

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
Her uterus and hymen could have been open just enough for the light of the world to pass through without violating her virginity and still fulfill Holy Scripture.

Although I can accept this as a pious opinion, it strikes me as a rather odd opinion notwithstanding your excellent anatomy lesson. When we speak of Jesus entering a closed room, do we say He slipped through a crack in the door? And did Jesus need to find a gap in the seal of His sepulcher to escape? Why can't the RCC simply admit that Jesus, true God and true man, in the communication of the attributes, can pass through Mary's tokens of virginity without damage?

[ May 12, 2004, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

[AdoptedDaughter]

It is quite clear in Scripture. You are stating a Roman Catholic argument which has been amply refuted in previous threads. The Greek has a very specific word for cousin. If Mat.13:55 had meant for these individuals to be referred to as cousins, the word for cousins would have been used, but it wasn't--the word adelphos, meaning brother, was used. In fact, adelphos is used over 330 times in the Bible and is translated brother, or its plural every time. It refers to brothers, not cousins. If it referred to cousins it would say cousins, but it doesn't. It is as simple as that. The context speaks of his immediate family--mother, father, brothers, sisters--not cousins. To force cousins into this context would be to do injustice to the Scriptures.
DHK

Matthew was written in Aramaic.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by AdoptedDaughter:
Matthew was written in Aramaic.

That also is a myth. Both Catholics and liberal "scholars" so-called, like to propagate it, but it isn't true. If it is, provide the evidence.
Even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and allowed that it was, it still would not make any difference whatsoever because God the Holy Spirit inspired the Divine Scriptures in Koine Greek, the common Greek of the first century. The New Testament manuscripts, inspired of God are written in Greek. That is what is authoritative. That is what we must go by.
DHK

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Christ4Kildare:
You know what? I just read 1 Timothy 6v20 and realised that by partaking in this arguement I am in violation of that Biblical principle.

I'm outa here -

This thread is not about "profane and vain babblings". The posters are expressing piously held opinions that are worthy of consideration.

"Clauso Utero" may or may not be correct but it is not "false science" in the sense that it can not be possible. We know from scripture that Jesus whose humanity is never separated from His divinity can pass through solid objects.

This principle is extremely important to Christians. In Communion, the body and blood of Christ, His humanity and divinity, is received in, with, and under the solid objects of bread and wine.

[ May 13, 2004, 07:50 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
This principle is extremely important to Christians. In Communion, the body and blood of Christ, His humanity and divinity, is received in, with, and under the solid objects of bread and wine.

That is a major difference between Baptists and Catholics (and possibly Lutherans). There is not magic in the elements, neither any impartation of grace. The bread and wine (or juice) is simply that bread and wine--nothng more, nothing less. They are simply symbolic of the body and blood of Christ. They are to be used as a memorial--a time of remembrance until the Lord comes again. They do not impart grace. Christ is not in those element. That in itself is a heresy. We do not commit cannibalism. That is not what was meant in Mat.26 when Jesus spoke to his disciples, saying. "This is my body, Take, eat of it."
They knew that it wasn't his literal body. He was standing right before them. It was symbolic of his body. If it was that obvious to his disciples it ought to be fairly obvious to us.
DHK

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by DHK:
It is quite clear in Scripture. You are stating a Roman Catholic argument which has been amply refuted in previous threads. The Greek has a very specific word for cousin.

The term "brother" (in Greek, adelphos) has a very wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). That is because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin." And, while the NT was written in Greek, it was an account of things that happenned in Hebrew and Aramaic. The Old Testament shows that the term "brother" had a very wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers"), as well as kinsman such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or law though not related to you by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (1 Sam. 9:13; 20:32; 2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth, and I think Jesus did literally have brothers and sisters. I also think that Mark 6:3 and John 7:5 are literally referring to Jesus' brothers and sisters, not his cousins. However, the use of the words adelphos, adelphe, and adelphoi are not strictly limited to literal brothers and sisters.

 

[DHK]

In 330 plus cases of the use of the word can you show me where the word is employed as referring to anything else but actual brother, or spiritual brother, as it often does. We know by context that those around him are not referring to Christians--spiritual brethren--they were the crowd, probably not even saved themselves. They were asking from whence comes this man. They didn't really know who he was. But the did know his family, and point out his family--his mother, his father, his brothers, his sisters. And then they said: Are they not all with us, as in right here, now. The context even dictates it was immediate family. There is no possible way thet the Catholics could use Mat.13:55 to refer to cousins, all other arguments for "brother" aside.
DHK

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Context is everything. If they were all cousins there would be no need to mention sisters. Furthermore there is another word specifically used for cousin. Why wasn't it used if these were all cousins? The RC argument that these were cousins holds no water, and is absolutely ridiculous.
DHK

 

[Johnv]

HELLOOO????? I said, that, in this context, I believe the word was being used to refer to a literal brother and sister. Sheesh! I'm agreeing with you, and you're all over me like white on rice. I don't appreciate it.

My point is that the terminology, in general, can refer to kinfolk that are not brother and sister. Those who make the claim that "brothers and sisters" refer to cousins have a valid point that it is in the very least possible. However, contextually, I don't believe it to be likely, and I believe that the brothers and sisters referred to are, literally, brothers and sisters.

Kindly get off your high horse and take a deep breath.

 

[DHK]

John you haven't been agreeing with me; you have been disagreeing with me, and agreeing with the Catholics.
Here is your original post on the issue:

To be fair, that's not clear in sctipture. It's implied, but it is entirely possible that the persons mentioned as Jesus brothers and sisters are, by what we understand, his cousins, since they hebrews used the same word. However, that being said, scripture does records that Mary remain a virgn until the birth of Jesus, so that also implies that she did not remain a virgin her entire life. Now, i happen to believe that Mary and Joseph went on th have other chirdren, and that Jesus' brothers and sisters were indeed his brothers and sisters, but that's not 100% scripturally affirmed.

Your position is here is the Cathlic position--it cannot be proved that Mary had children, and she could have remained a virgin. This is untrue.

The context of Mat.13:55,56 proves otherwise, both by context and by definition of adelphos. Now, do you believe the Catholics or the Scriptures on this issue. Make yourself clear.
DHK

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by DHK:
John you haven't been agreeing with me; you have been disagreeing with me, and agreeing with the Catholics.

I'm not "agreeing" or "disagreeng". My point was that there's it's not 100% scripturally clear that Jesus did in fact have brothers and sisters. It's scripturally likely, but not 100% scripturally clear. I'm not going to change my scripturally supportable position just because it may support the Catholic view.

Your position is here is the Cathlic position--it cannot be proved that Mary had children, and she could have remained a virgin.

That's not my position at all. My position is that it's not scripturally clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I never stated anything that supports "prepetual virginity", only the idea that Jesus may not have had brothers and sisters. I said nothing about Mary's virginity, except when I referred to the verse that states Mary remained a virgin until after the birth of Jesus. You're putting words in my mouth if you're suggesting I support perpetual virginity.

The context of Mat.13:55,56 proves otherwise, both by context and by definition of adelphos.

Except that the word spoken was in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek. In Hebrew and Aramaic, "brothers/sisters" also was known to have referred to cousins. The Greek texts is using that same word (adelphos). I agree that the context suggests that they were indeed brothers and sisters, but this is not 100% scruptirally clear.

Now, do you believe the Catholics or the Scriptures on this issue. Make yourself clear.
DHK

I've made myself abundantly clear. I believe scripture on this issue. Whether it agrees with you or with Catholics is of no concern, and I don't change my view based on whose view it supports.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Johnv:

[qb]The context of Mat.13:55,56 proves otherwise, both by context and by definition of adelphos.

Except that the word spoken was in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek. In Hebrew and Aramaic, "brothers/sisters" also was known to have referred to cousins. The Greek texts is using that same word (adelphos). I agree that the context suggests that they were indeed brothers and sisters, but this is not 100% scruptirally clear.

Your position is not correct here for a number of reasons.
1. Jesus would not have spoken Hebrew and Aramaic in this situation. It was not even Jesus speaking. It was the crowd. Jesus speaking at all is a red herring. It is irrelevant. Look at the context again.

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

The last part of verse 54:
they were astonished, and said, Whence
hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty
works?
The "they" would likely be speaking Greek. It was the universal language of the day, that all could understand. Even among the Jews, the Hebrew language was becoming somewhat extinct, and hard to understand for the common person. It is not Jesus that is speaking; it is the crowd. Your assertion about Jesus's words being in Hebrew or in Aramaic is totally irrelevant.

2. You must, of a necessity, deal with the Greek language. That is the language that God inspired, whatever Jesus and others spoke in. The inspired text is in Greek. Deal with it. The "myth" that we even have a copy of Matthew in Aramaic hasn't even been proven. It remains just that, a myth. We have Matthew's record in Greek. What Matthew wrote in Greek, God inspired. What God inspired is accurate enough for us to go by. We cannot justify going back to another language that we are not even sure was used. That doesn't even make sense.
DHK

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John Gilmore:
This principle is extremely important to Christians. In Communion, the body and blood of Christ, His humanity and divinity, is received in, with, and under the solid objects of bread and wine.

That is a major difference between Baptists and Catholics (and possibly Lutherans). There is not magic in the elements, neither any impartation of grace. The bread and wine (or juice) is simply that bread and wine--nothng more, nothing less. </font>[/QUOTE]Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ. Lutherans believe that the bread remains bread and wine remains wine.

If Christ can pass through solid objects such closed doors, a sealed tomb, a closed womb (possibly), he can be in, with, and under solid objects such as bread and wine as He has promised. This is not magic.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ. Lutherans believe that the bread remains bread and wine remains wine.

If Christ can pass through solid objects such closed doors, a sealed tomb, a closed womb (possibly), he can be in, with, and under solid objects such as bread and wine as He has promised. This is not magic.

No, it is a superstition with no Biblical evidence.
DHK