Clauso Utero

[Eric B]

I don't believe a lot of this discussion. (and my topic on desire in marriage was inappropriate?) Where does the Bible say so much detail about the state of Mary's anatomy? Yes, He may have passed through solid objects later, but that was for a particular purpose. Nowhere does it say this was necessary in His birth. He was conceived supernaturally, but nowhere does it say His birth therefore had to be supernatural. People are trying to overgeneralize certain concepts, that the Bible does not even address, and if anything, the whole point of the Bible is how Christ had the same flesh as the rest of us. Why not just say Christ did not really come in the flesh, he was just a spirit who passed through solid matter, etc.? Sounds just like "the doctrine of antichrist", doesn't it, and we don't want to admit that, do we.
As for "conceive and bare", Christ4Kildare said it perfectly; "Mary was a virgin because she had never had sexual relations. That is the normal sense of the word and totally fits scripture. To try and make virginity apply to all of Mary's birth process is an unnecessary complication that has no Bible basis".

 

[DHK]

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

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

It was a RCC doctrine when I was a catholic and attended a catholic school and attended mass every morning and catechism classes for 8 years...

Most catholics refuse to believe that Mary even had other children. They prefer to believe (and are taught to believe) that she remained a virgin all her life.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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 -

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
It was a RCC doctrine when I was a catholic and attended a catholic school and attended mass every morning and catechism classes for 8 years...

Most catholics refuse to believe that Mary even had other children. They prefer to believe (and are taught to believe) that she remained a virgin all her life.

That only made sense to me as the basis of the doctrine, hence I wondered why Kathryn would deny that it was a Catholic doctrine.
DHK

 

[Kathryn]

Clauso Utero is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. The virgin birth is a docrine of the Catholic Church. I Am Blessed seems to be confusing the two. Catholics believe Jesus Christ was born of a virgin as Holy Scripture prophesied. A virgin shall conceive and bear a son. Actually, I assumed that Baptist believed this also, but learned something new. Seems some do and some don’t.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Kathryn,

If Martin Luther believed in this concept, the Lutheran Church would still hold to such a cardinal doctrine. Think of it in this way and you might get back on track.

We will give this one for the Catholics to accept as being true.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
Clauso Utero is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. The virgin birth is a docrine of the Catholic Church. I Am Blessed seems to be confusing the two. Catholics believe Jesus Christ was born of a virgin as Holy Scripture prophesied. A virgin shall conceive and bear a son. Actually, I assumed that Baptist believed this also, but learned something new. Seems some do and some don’t.

We believe that Christ was born of a virgin, as the Scripture teaches. This would not affect the means that he was born. That is, why would he be born any differntly than any other child? Giving birth to Christ does not affect Mary's virginity whether Christ came down the birth canal, whether the hymen was broken, etc., etc,. All those things are totally irrelevant. What would break her virginity would be Joseph having intercourse with her, and thus the result of her having more children which the Bible definitely teaches.

We have no problem in the belief that Christ was born of a virgin. It is one of the basic beliefs of the Christian faith.
DHK

 

[Kathryn]

Catholics believe Mary was physically a virgin after the virgin birth of Jesus Christ as prophesied by Holy Scripture. She would have all the signs of a virgin in order to fulfill Holy Scripture. Jesus Christ as true man and true God would have come through the birth canal. The Catholic Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." Jesus passing through the birth canal would not have violated Mary from being a virgin. Her virginity would have been sanctified, not violated. The conception and birth of Jesus Christ are both miraculous. It was not an everyday normal birth. It was a virgin conception and a virgin birth as prophesied__a miraculous event. "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
Catholics believe Mary was physically a virgin after the virgin birth of Jesus Christ as prophesied by Holy Scripture. She would have all the signs of a virgin in order to fulfill Holy Scripture.

What "signs" are you referring to? Being a virgin means she didn't have sex. Having sex is not a requirement of the borthing process. It is only a requirement for conception. Since Mary's conception was taken care of, the rest is a non-issue. There's nothing whatsover in Catholic or biblical doctrine that requires any additional "signs of virginity", aside from Mary having never engaged in intercourse prior to Jesus' birth.

 

[Kathryn]

Catholics believe Mary's physical virginity was left intact by the virgin birth. I have already gone into great detail anatomically what this would mean. We can be accused of being literal in our interpretation of this prophecy of Holy Scripture, but I am sure most here would rather die that admit that. We believe Mary had all the physical signs of still being a virgin during and after the virgin birth.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
Catholics believe Mary's physical virginity was left intact by the virgin birth. I have already gone into great detail anatomically what this would mean. We can be accused of being literal in our interpretation of this prophecy of Holy Scripture, but I am sure most here would rather die that admit that. We believe Mary had all the physical signs of still being a virgin during and after the virgin birth.

Now that position, whatever the theological nametag you want to give to it, is simply made-up to justify the RC doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It has no basis in Scripture.
DHK

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

We believe Mary had all the physical signs of still being a virgin during and after the virgin birth.

Being a catholic, you have to believe that, otherwise you could not pray to the 'virgin Mary'. It is not now, nor never has been, scriptural since Mary went on to have children with Joseph after the birth of Jesus.

Do you take that part of the Bible literally too?

 

[Kathryn]

Now that position, whatever the theological nametag you want to give to it, is simply made-up to justify the RC doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It has no basis in Scripture.

Catholics believe Holy Scritpure: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." This is the scriptural support. It was a virgin birth as well as conception.

Do you realize that your interpretation would be a very unique birth to say the least? Mary would have been unlike any other mother to have her son instead of her husband break her hymen. Normal mother's hymens are broken by the father of their first child 9 months before deliver, making deliver much easier for the baby to pass through. You are claiming Jesus would have had a normal birth, but normal births don't have intact virgin hymens. Mary's deliver would have been that much more painful than a woman without a virgin conception. Something to think about when you call Mary's delivery of Jesus perfectly normal like anyone else.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

With all the pain of childbirth, I doubt Mary would have noticed!

Please answer my question...

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
With all the pain of childbirth, I doubt Mary would have noticed!

I Am Blessed, I was thinking the same thing, but didn't have the nerve to post it. LOL!

You just made my day.

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Kathryn:

Do you realize that your interpretation would be a very unique birth to say the least? Mary would have been unlike any other mother to have her son instead of her husband break her hymen. Normal mother's hymens are broken by the father of their first child 9 months before deliver, making deliver much easier for the baby to pass through. You are claiming Jesus would have had a normal birth, but normal births don't have intact virgin hymens. Mary's deliver would have been that much more painful than a woman without a virgin conception. Something to think about when you call Mary's delivery of Jesus perfectly normal like anyone else.

I doubt if the hymen would stand in the way of the birth of a baby. That's quite a stretch of the imagination. Christ went through a normal birth. The only difference is that he didn't have a human father. It is really not that hard to comprehend. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not by Joseph. All other aspects of his birth were just as normal as any other birth.

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Which Resulted In:

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?
DHK

 

[Kathryn]

"With all the pain of childbirth, I doubt Mary would have noticed!"

It is a cute response, but that is not the point, it would have made Jesus birth a very unique and unnormal birth to break his mother's hymen. It has been said here his birth was completely normal just like any other babies birth. Father's break the hymen 9 months before the babies delivery. You guys can say you don't care if you want to, but that doesn't make it a "normal" delivery.

"Please answer my question... "

Your question has been answered innumerable times in the past. It is also another subject. Here is a website that addresses the subject of Mary's "other children":

http://www.cin.org/jp960828.html

We are talking here about Mary's virgin conception and birth of Jesus Christ as prophecied in Holy Scripture.

Jesus Christ as true man and true God would have come through the birth canal. The Catholic Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

"it would have made Jesus birth a very unique and unnormal birth to break his mother's hymen."

It would have made for a much more unusual birth if He had left everything intact...

You keep forgetting that I came out of catholicism. I know what they teach. Thank God my eyes were opened and I will pray that yours will be also.

The fact that you put "other children" in parenthesis tells me all I need to know. You do not believe Mary had other children, therefore, you do NOT take ALL of the Bible literally. Just what the RCC tells you to. Sad...

 

[Kathryn]

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."