Jesus Christ was Born of Woman . . . fact or fiction?

[Deadworm]

Don't get me wrong; I am an Evangelical who embraces Jesus' virgin birth. But I think it is worthwhile to note, if only for apologetic reasons, how the modern scholarly consensus interprets the phrases " born of a woman" in Galatians 4:4 and "a sperm of David according to the flesh" in Romans 1:3. Paul's generic claim that Jesus was "born of a woman" serves as the inspiration for the later creedal use of this expression and is routinely used as an argument against the virgin birth. The modern scholarly consensus argues that the earliest NT writings (Paul and Mark) know nothing of the virgin birth and that this doctrine is invented around the 80s AD and then defended in conflicting traditions in Matthew and Luke. It is argued that the Galatians phrase "born of a woman" is incompatible with virgin birth traditions because Paul would have written "born of a virgin" or its equivalent, if he knew about a virgin birth doctrine. This argument is reinforced by Paul's description of Jesus as "a sperm of David" in Romans 1:3. This phrase, it is argued, means that Jesus is a sperm of Joseph, who descended from David. This argument is reinforced by arguing that if Paul believed in the virgin birth, he would have mentioned that here rather than designate Him by the male sexual term "sperm." How would you respond to these arguments? I repeat: I myself affirm Christ's virgin birth.

 

[37818]

"...baptism that now saves you..."

As an antitype of Noah and his family who were literaly saved through the flood. Which you do not understand as to what immersion as a symbole represents being only an antitype of a literal event.

 

[Iconoclast]

Mary is a "type" of Eve. Thus we call her the New Eve because she is like the original Eve prior to the fall.

JoeT

You have that backwards. Types give was to the reality.
Mary rejoiced in God her saviour.
Mary needed to be saved from her sins.
Mary and Joseph had several children after the birth of Jesus.
Joseph did not "know " Mary, Until after the birth of Jesus.

 

[Particular]

Mary is a "type" of Eve. Thus we call her the New Eve because she is like the original Eve prior to the fall.

JoeT

False, false and false.
Wherever you heard this, it isn't from the Bible. Perhaps a misguided monk or a note on a bubblegum wrapper, but never in the Bible.
Joe, it seems that the Bible may not be important to you when discussing Mary. However, the only information we have about Mary is in the Bible. Nowhere else can we look. So, to the Bible we must go.
Now, it is a 100% fact that what you state is never stated in the Bible. Therefore, you are speaking from a source outside of the Bible. A source that speaks, not by inspiration of God, but by speculation of man. If we are going to have any fruitful discussion we will confine ourselves to the primary source documents of the Bible and go nowhere else. Will you agree? If not, then a discussion on this issue is pointless.

 

[Particular]

Jesus did not sin because the knowledge of good and evil was His knowledge to begin with (Genesis 3:22; Mark 10:18).

Now to the topic of this thread, Genesis 3:15, ". . . And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. . . ." Galatains 4:4, ". . . when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, . . ." And 1 John 3;5, ". . . ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. . . ." 1 John 3:8, ". . . For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. . . ."

Do you realize that none of your verses show that Mary's dna was needed for Jesus to come as a human?
Galatians 4:4 says "made of a woman." The ESV says "born of a woman." It does not say the DNA of a woman was needed. It says that Mary was the host in which God became human.

If Mary's dna was a part of Jesus, Jesus would have been corrupted as are all people from the first Adam. But, Jesus is the new Adam. Perfect.

There is no more need for me to discuss this aspect. It is what I believe. I hold no grudge if you think Jesus gets his dna through Mary.

 

[Walpole]

Actually the word is diasozo - to bring safely through; to convey in safety, to reach a place or state of safety. (Mounce)

God brought them safely through the water. This is really easy stuff.

Exactly!

What Peter says ---> "Saved THROUGH water"

What Peter DOES NOT say ---> "Saved FROM water"

Peter indeed says they were saved by the Ark.

1Pet. 3:20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,​

Very strange why you won't accept this. Peter would want you to accept this.

Very strange that you quote St. Peter but won't accept his words...

What Peter says ---> "In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water..."

What Peter DOES NOT say ---> "In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved by the Ark."

The type is the Ark, the reality is Christ. You accept neither.

I accept the type is the Ark and the reality is the Church of Christ.

The Flood was a real global historical event. Do believe this?

Was the deluge actual water or just symbolic of something, like God's destructive power?

(I believe the it was a historical event with actual water.)

Indeed, by Peter the interpreter, who needs no interpreter. You've been taught by someone else.

But you are arguing against the words of Peter, who says explicitly the waters of baptism saves you, as the waters of Noah saved him and his family.

Yes, the baptism of Christ by the Spirit which the water symbolizes. You're relying on your works with elements you've gathered. I'm relying on Christ.

The words of Peter refute any concept that water is symbolic. Here again are his words...

"...to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:20-21, NIV, which you quoted)

The Apostle links the deluge to baptism. The water saved Noah and his family and the waters of baptism now saves you. We know he means actual water because he says baptism is not for the removal of dirt from one's body, but is instead salvific. If the baptism he was speaking about was symbolic, that is one sans water, it would not even be capable of removing dirt from the body.

In Christianity, matter...matters.

 

[Walpole]

As an antitype of Noah and his family who were literaly saved through the flood. Which you do not understand as to what immersion as a symbole represents being only an antitype of a literal event.

If baptism is not salvific, then it would be the first time in all of Scripture where the type / symbol of something exceeded the reality of it.

 

[JoeT]

You have that backwards. Types give was to the reality.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Types give was to the reality". Nevertheless, Catholics hold types to be Old Testament people and events that foreshadow or prefigure New Testament events and people. This is clearly defined in the Catholic Catechism. of the Catholic Church:

The Church, as early as apostolic times, [Cf. 1 Cor 10:6,11; Heb 10:l; l Pet 3:21] and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son. [CCC 128]

Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself. [Cf. Mk 12:29-31]. Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament.[ Cf. 1 Cor 5:6-8; 10:1-11] As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New. [Cf. St. Augustine, Quaest. in Hept. 2,73L 34,623; Cf. DV 16.] [CCC 129]​

Mary rejoiced in God her saviour.

Indeed she did saying,

My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.[Luke 1:46-55]

Mary needed to be saved from her sins.

Indeed, did I not say Mary didn't need to be saved, she was preserved from sin by God by a singular act of mercy. Not just for Mary's sake but for humanity's salvation.

Mary receives her savific grace much the same way you receive grace of salvation. Mary however received a singular grace of salvation from God at the very instance of her conception which preserves her free of all stain of sin. The same way your salvific justification received in Baptism is independent on your parental lineage, Mary's grace comes from the merits of Jesus Christ.

Mary and Joseph had several children after the birth of Jesus.

Your statement is based not on Scripture alone by on the traditions of the protest against God's holy Church. Your tradition says, "if it ain't in the bible it ain't so". But, being a renowned biblical scholar such as you are please point out the verse that says any other named is the child of Joseph and Mary.

I contend as the Church does, that to have violated Mary's virginity would have resulted in the wrath of God on steroids; she was the consummated spouse of the Holy Spirit. [Luke 1:35].

Joseph did not "know " Mary, Until after the birth of Jesus.

I'm glad you straightened me out about what "until" means - 'up to a certain point' because at Anna's age it must've been really hard on the old widow up til her 84th year after which her husband re-animated. If she was a widow "up to" 84 years of age then she must've become un-widowed after that: at least by your logic.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

False, false and false.
Wherever you heard this, it isn't from the Bible. Perhaps a misguided monk or a note on a bubblegum wrapper, but never in the Bible.

I'm sure it was a monk. Lets see if we can reason Mary was a type of New Eve, more precisely she was an anti-type of Eve.

Eve was sinless before the fall and was seduced by the word of the serpent.
Mary was sinless and trusted the word of God
Hence the anti-type Eve is Mary.

Let's add another type, Mary is a type an Ark of the Covenant. The Covenant, written word of God was housed in an Ark. The New Covenant word of God, manna from heaven rested in the womb of Mary.

And another type, Mary is a type Ark built by Noah that carried 8 across the dark waters of a sinful world to the dry shores of salvation. Mary carried one across the dark waters of sin amassed in the world since Adam to the salvific shores of our justification in water and Holy Spirit Baptism.

It is Mary who ‘magnifies’ the Lord in here unique humility and desire to serve God. She is immaculately conceived, without sin, original sin or actual sin. It is through Mary that God acts to bring His Wisdom to life in the perfect flesh of man across the dark waters of sin in the Ark of Mary’s womb to the shores of our salvation.

Joe, it seems that the Bible may not be important to you when discussing Mary. However, the only information we have about Mary is in the Bible. Nowhere else can we look. So, to the Bible we must go.
Now, it is a 100% fact that what you state is never stated in the Bible. Therefore, you are speaking from a source outside of the Bible. A source that speaks, not by inspiration of God, but by speculation of man. If we are going to have any fruitful discussion we will confine ourselves to the primary source documents of the Bible and go nowhere else. Will you agree? If not, then a discussion on this issue is pointless.

Nor are planes trains and automobiles not stated in Scripture, but 100% fact, they are a reality. Mary has been honored as the Ever Virgin Mother of God from the first century. Its so stated in the Apostles Creed which has it roots in the Apostles. She is an absolute necessity to magnify the Lord which remains unknown to the world except through Mary.

Ebionism suggests Mary to a mere woman with original sin and an uncontrollable concupiscence and as such Jesus Christ was mere man. Jesus would have original sin predestine to become God like prophet neither being considered as a God or a man. Maybe we could believe Scripture better if Mary was the way every other woman was considered in the first century, sinful, lustful and ignorant with no more rights in the community than a child. This is the Mary of the Adoptionist who contends that Jesus Christ was merely the adopted Son of God. He was the ordinary human prodigy of Joseph and Mary but when He was baptized the Holy Spirit claimed his body. You might say a man possessed by a good spirit. Then there is Docetism which draws it name from the Greek dokein which means “to seem”. Christ wasn’t real, that is he was merely a vision of a man thus Mary was nothing but background material, she wasn’t part of God’s plan - rather an obstacle for God to be ignored. He wasn’t really born in the same sense a real men are born, rather he simply appears and everybody assumes he was born. Docetism holds that His suffering on the cross was a phantasmal being, which is only the appearance of a man. Then there is the Arianism, the another Protestant faith in Jesus Christ. This is your Jesus Christ for sure. Arianist and smi-Arians nearly won the battle, however Mary kept getting in the way. Jesus was wholly devine and related to God as the son and had the nature man, sort of. His human nature was subservient to the divine nature and did not act. Rather it was always the divine nature that acted in Jesus Christ. His substance as such was divisible. The Arianist reduced the Word of God to a demigod with a beginning and end.

The Son is homoiousias according to the Arianist, the Son is of similar essence as the Father opposed to the Catholic who holds the Son as homoousias, that is to say the Son is of the same essence as the Father. You see yourself predated by some 1700 years in the game of word play.

Nestorianism holds that the baby in Mary's womb had only one nature, divine nature. The logical extension of this heresy is that man is a hypostasis, but not the person without the individual characteristics. Thus Christ has no essence outside of the way the Apostles define His individual traits. Nestorianism then has the Person of Christ defined by the physical body. And the way the battle ensued over the mere title of the "Theotokos" it became clear that without the Mother of God there could be no reality in the Divinity of Christ uniquely and inseparably joined to man would not be possible. Hence both Nestorianism quickly died away with Arianism falling shortly thereafter. If there is no mother of God, then there is no whole and complete union between the Divine God and His creation, man. All faith in Christ as described by Scriptures would eventually fall into worship of a mythical Christ.

It is Mary who gives us a window to this simple truth. Apollinarianism holds that the spoken Word assumes the Body of Jesus Christ. Mary merely provides the flesh and the incubator for an automaton comprised of flesh. There is only one will in the Second Person of Christ for the Apollinarianist, the divine will. The Person of Jesus Christ is wholly divine, but only partly human, that is the flesh of a human without a will to animate the body and as such incomplete essence of the Second Person. Last here, but not the last the final Christological heresy is Monophysitism, Christ is a perfect man with a complete human nature ‘assumed’ by God. There is but one essence and one nature. Here too we seen the absence of Mary as a magnifier. The comparison between Monophsitism and Nestrianism is seen in two simple lines.

You need Mary to magnify the Lord

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

Why does this thread exist, but to question God's word?


She wasn't.
She confessed to needing a Saviour, just as any person whom God has impressed the need of a Saviour upon:

" And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." ( Luke 1:46-48 )

Jesus was sinless, just as His word states:


" For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." ( 2 Corinthians 5:21 ).

" For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin." ( Hebrews 4:15 ).

Mary was not.
God's people do not revere Mary.

We call her "blessed" because she bore the Lord Jesus as his earthly mother.
It was the singular greatest blessing a mother would ever receive...
To give birth to her Saviour, watch Him grow up, watch Him sacrifice Himself on the cross for her, and then join Him when she died.

No woman will ever be that blessed.

But she still needed a Saviour, because like all of us, she was a sinner ( Ecclesiastes 7:20, Romans 3:11, Romans 3:23 ).

What you really mean is that God couldn't wouldn't and shouldn't honor the Mother of His Son. People do indeed honor Mary for her part in our Salvation, and so must you for the sake of your salvation.

JoeT

 

[Particular]

I'm sure it was a monk. Lets see if we can reason Mary was a type of New Eve, more precisely she was an anti-type of Eve.

Eve was sinless before the fall and was seduced by the word of the serpent.
Mary was sinless and trusted the word of God
Hence the anti-type Eve is Mary.

Let's add another type, Mary is a type an Ark of the Covenant. The Covenant, written word of God was housed in an Ark. The New Covenant word of God, manna from heaven rested in the womb of Mary.

And another type, Mary is a type Ark built by Noah that carried 8 across the dark waters of a sinful world to the dry shores of salvation. Mary carried one across the dark waters of sin amassed in the world since Adam to the salvific shores of our justification in water and Holy Spirit Baptism.

It is Mary who ‘magnifies’ the Lord in here unique humility and desire to serve God. She is immaculately conceived, without sin, original sin or actual sin. It is through Mary that God acts to bring His Wisdom to life in the perfect flesh of man across the dark waters of sin in the Ark of Mary’s womb to the shores of our salvation.




Nor are planes trains and automobiles not stated in Scripture, but 100% fact, they are a reality. Mary has been honored as the Ever Virgin Mother of God from the first century. Its so stated in the Apostles Creed which has it roots in the Apostles. She is an absolute necessity to magnify the Lord which remains unknown to the world except through Mary.

Ebionism suggests Mary to a mere woman with original sin and an uncontrollable concupiscence and as such Jesus Christ was mere man. Jesus would have original sin predestine to become God like prophet neither being considered as a God or a man. Maybe we could believe Scripture better if Mary was the way every other woman was considered in the first century, sinful, lustful and ignorant with no more rights in the community than a child. This is the Mary of the Adoptionist who contends that Jesus Christ was merely the adopted Son of God. He was the ordinary human prodigy of Joseph and Mary but when He was baptized the Holy Spirit claimed his body. You might say a man possessed by a good spirit. Then there is Docetism which draws it name from the Greek dokein which means “to seem”. Christ wasn’t real, that is he was merely a vision of a man thus Mary was nothing but background material, she wasn’t part of God’s plan - rather an obstacle for God to be ignored. He wasn’t really born in the same sense a real men are born, rather he simply appears and everybody assumes he was born. Docetism holds that His suffering on the cross was a phantasmal being, which is only the appearance of a man. Then there is the Arianism, the another Protestant faith in Jesus Christ. This is your Jesus Christ for sure. Arianist and smi-Arians nearly won the battle, however Mary kept getting in the way. Jesus was wholly devine and related to God as the son and had the nature man, sort of. His human nature was subservient to the divine nature and did not act. Rather it was always the divine nature that acted in Jesus Christ. His substance as such was divisible. The Arianist reduced the Word of God to a demigod with a beginning and end.

The Son is homoiousias according to the Arianist, the Son is of similar essence as the Father opposed to the Catholic who holds the Son as homoousias, that is to say the Son is of the same essence as the Father. You see yourself predated by some 1700 years in the game of word play.

Nestorianism holds that the baby in Mary's womb had only one nature, divine nature. The logical extension of this heresy is that man is a hypostasis, but not the person without the individual characteristics. Thus Christ has no essence outside of the way the Apostles define His individual traits. Nestorianism then has the Person of Christ defined by the physical body. And the way the battle ensued over the mere title of the "Theotokos" it became clear that without the Mother of God there could be no reality in the Divinity of Christ uniquely and inseparably joined to man would not be possible. Hence both Nestorianism quickly died away with Arianism falling shortly thereafter. If there is no mother of God, then there is no whole and complete union between the Divine God and His creation, man. All faith in Christ as described by Scriptures would eventually fall into worship of a mythical Christ.

It is Mary who gives us a window to this simple truth. Apollinarianism holds that the spoken Word assumes the Body of Jesus Christ. Mary merely provides the flesh and the incubator for an automaton comprised of flesh. There is only one will in the Second Person of Christ for the Apollinarianist, the divine will. The Person of Jesus Christ is wholly divine, but only partly human, that is the flesh of a human without a will to animate the body and as such incomplete essence of the Second Person. Last here, but not the last the final Christological heresy is Monophysitism, Christ is a perfect man with a complete human nature ‘assumed’ by God. There is but one essence and one nature. Here too we seen the absence of Mary as a magnifier. The comparison between Monophsitism and Nestrianism is seen in two simple lines.

You need Mary to magnify the Lord

JoeT

Wow, you avoided the Bible entirely. I guess that's the Roman Catholic way.
Mary weeps for your misunderstanding of her life.

 

[JoeT]

No woman will ever be that blessed.

Really, how many emissaries of God were sent to you to say, you were bear the Son of God? How many emissaries of God were sent to you to say, 'good job'?

JoeT

 

[Adonia]

That...is why it is a miracle. Just like Sarah bearing Isaac in her old age, it defies common sense. Just like a virgin being pregnant, it defies common sense.
For Jesus to be perfect, he must be a man, created like Adam, with no sin. Mary is a sinner. Her very nature is corrupt. God was not corrupted by Mary's dna. God is perfect, as was the first Adam. This is why Jesus is called the second Adam. But, Jesus passes through Satan's temptations without sinning.
Sorry, Mary doesn't get worshipped.

Sorry, I still do not agree. Jesus (God Incarnate) was fully human and fully divine. Mary's DNA could not be anything but passed on to Jesus. If Mary was a sinner like you claim, God who is pure would not even entered into her as Jesus the forming human. So, so much for your hypothesis.

Mary is like you said not to be worshipped and I don't know anyone who does that.

 

[Adonia]

Mary is not a new Eve. Mary is a corrupt, young sinner like all women and men. She was graciously chosen, despite her corruption, to be the host where God would dwell for 9 months and then raise the God-man until he reached maturity

Gee, I wonder why He (God) didn't choose a hooker to be His birth mother - now that would have been a statement! The symbolism of her as the "New Eve" is pretty strong in my mind. If Jesus is the new Adam, then why not her as the new Eve?

 

[JoeT]

What I really mean is that you have a choice...
Believe your church, or believe God's word.

If you hear the Church you hear Jesus Christ, if you despise the Church then you despise Christ. [Cf. Luke 10:16]

My salvation does not rest upon Mary, myself, or anything I could ever do or have done.

It does indeed effect your salvation if you identify a Book instead of Jesus Christ as your savior. We say Jesus Christ is the Living Logos, the Wisdom of God, Mary was the Mother of the Word of God, the Living Wisdom. Jesus Christ is the personification of Justice, Mary the mother of the living Justice.

It relies on God's choice to save me,
Rather than casting me into eternal fire for my sins.

It does indeed, he saves those justified, the act of moving from unjust to perfectly just.

I don't honor Mary for being better than me...

When was the last time you walked and talked with God in the flesh? I hate to be the one who tells you this, but yes Mary is much better than all of us put together.

I honor her for being chosen to bear my Savior, when He chose to be born of a woman.

Like you honor a clay pot?

She was greatly blessed of women...
More than any other.

? really, you heap sin on her and say you honor her and she's greatly blessed?

JoeT

 

[Adonia]

It does not say the DNA of a woman was needed.

What's with all this DNA talk anyway. Just where in the scriptures is that mentioned?

 

[JoeT]

You have that backwards. Types give was to the reality.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Types give was to the reality". Nevertheless, Catholics hold types to be Old Testament people and events that foreshadow or prefigure New Testament events and people. This is clearly defined in the Catholic Catechism. of the Catholic Church:

The Church, as early as apostolic times, [Cf. 1 Cor 10:6,11; Heb 10:l; l Pet 3:21] and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son. [CCC 128]

Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself. [Cf. Mk 12:29-31]. Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament.[ Cf. 1 Cor 5:6-8; 10:1-11] As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New. [Cf. St. Augustine, Quaest. in Hept. 2,73L 34,623; Cf. DV 16.] [CCC 129]​

Mary rejoiced in God her saviour.

Indeed she did saying,

My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.[Luke 1:46-55]

Mary needed to be saved from her sins.

Indeed, did I not say she was preserved from sin by God.

Mary and Joseph had several children after the birth of Jesus.
Joseph did not "know " Mary, Until after the birth of Jesus.[/QUOTE]

 

[JoeT]

Gee, I wonder why He (God) didn't choose a hooker to be His birth mother - now that would have been a statement! The symbolism of her as the "New Eve" is pretty strong in my mind. If Jesus is the new Adam, then why not her as the new Eve?

In this thread Mary has been accused of being an adulterer in the accusation of having other children. She was the spouse of the Holy Spirit, He "overshadowed" her. Both Mary and Joseph would have been adulterers producing more children. Thus, either the God is a rapist or their relationship spousal. Such accusations are no less heretical than calling her a hooker.

JoeT

 

[Particular]

Sorry, I still do not agree. Jesus (God Incarnate) was fully human and fully divine. Mary's DNA could not be anything but passed on to Jesus. If Mary was a sinner like you claim, God who is pure would not even entered into her as Jesus the forming human. So, so much for your hypothesis.

Mary is like you said not to be worshipped and I don't know anyone who does that.

If it's only Mary's dna then Jesus would have to be a woman. No y chromosome.

God creates humans in his image, but sin corrupts us.
Mary clearly knew she needed a Savior, Luke 1, which means she knew she was a sinner. Since the Bible declares that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, this means Mary is a sinner.

God blessed Mary by choosing her as the host. She was chosen by grace, not because she merited the favor.
When you declare Mary sinless, you worship her.

 

[percho]

Don't get me wrong; I am an Evangelical who embraces Jesus' virgin birth. But I think it is worthwhile to note, if only for apologetic reasons, how the modern scholarly consensus interprets the phrases " born of a woman" in Galatians 4:4 and "a sperm of David according to the flesh" in Romans 1:3. Paul's generic claim that Jesus was "born of a woman" serves as the inspiration for the later creedal use of this expression and is routinely used as an argument against the virgin birth. The modern scholarly consensus argues that the earliest NT writings (Paul and Mark) know nothing of the virgin birth and that this doctrine is invented around the 80s AD and then defended in conflicting traditions in Matthew and Luke. It is argued that the Galatians phrase "born of a woman" is incompatible with virgin birth traditions because Paul would have written "born of a virgin" or its equivalent, if he knew about a virgin birth doctrine. This argument is reinforced by Paul's description of Jesus as "a sperm of David" in Romans 1:3. This phrase, it is argued, means that Jesus is a sperm of Joseph, who descended from David. This argument is reinforced by arguing that if Paul believed in the virgin birth, he would have mentioned that here rather than designate Him by the male sexual term "sperm." How would you respond to these arguments? I repeat: I myself affirm Christ's virgin birth.

From Rom 1:3
γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ
one becoming out of seed of David

From Gen 3:15 LXX
μέσον τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς
between the seed of her


Was Mary, of the seed, of David?