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

[Particular]

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?

You mean like Rahab, the great grandmother of David?
God chooses whom he wills.
Not once is Mary even suggested to be a new Eve. Your argument is filled with dogma created by your church, apart from God and his holy word.
If Mary was the new Eve, then Jesus would be married to his mom and we'd all call him Oedipus. He would be like the man who Paul tells the Corinthians to hand over to Satan until he repented.
So, your theory has more holes than Swiss cheese. But, odds are high you're going to cling to your fantasy anyway.

 

[Particular]

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

It's not. Yet, we know that all humans receive their code from their parents. So, either Jesus received his dna from a human dad and human mother or God miraculous formed a human from nothing...like Adam was formed.
Now, Jesus had to have been a woman if his dna comes only from a woman. It is physically impossible without a man's seed. God, being Spirit couldn't do it, so how did that happen?
Mary was the host for God to become human. God chose to bless her and show grace to her despite her need for a Savior.
I'm sorry you can't accept that, but instead create a myth that Mary is a perfect human, despite the Bible showing that she wasn't perfect.

 

[Rob_BW]

Jesus is also said to be born of woman. Many here believe that sin is in the nature of man (it is the flesh that is evil), consequently simply believing a man born of woman Jesus has this fleshy sin - justify how can God and fleshy sin be uniquely and insuperably joined?

I've never seen anyone justify saying Jesus is the union of man and God without the aid of magic while denying the Virgin Mary. Without the Virgin Mary, the New Eve, one is unable to justify the union of God and man in the person of Christ considering His perfection. I've heard all kinds of theories, the bubble-boy theory, the surrogate mother theory - both in and outside the womb, the man becomes god theory, or conversely god puts on flesh of man like a suit of clothes. In all these theories none take us from the incarnation to the sacrifice of the perfect Lamb of God without making Jesus Christ a sinner.

So we are left with the TRUTH, Mary is the Ever Virgin Mother of God, who never knew original sin or actual sin - this is how the will of God acted. How does the Logos, the Wisdom of God, made flesh to dwell amongst us. [John 1:14]? You've had since 1520 to figure an alternative to the Catholic truth, times up.

JoeT

So the Second Adam requires a New Eve, while the first Adam didn’t...

 

[JoeT]

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?

Mary was of the seed of David, see Matthew 1:16

JoeT

 

[Particular]

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

They were married. Joe and Mary got it on to the glory of God and had many kids. It's awesome. Embrace their love and enjoyment of sex in the confines of holy matrimony. My goodness, you miss the blessed union that God gave them and demand Mary and Joseph be chaste. Why? Certainly not because the Bible supports your thinking.

 

[Deadworm]

No, precisely the scholarly consensus's point.: to call Jesus "a sperm of David" seems to imply that David's descendent Joseph was Jesus' biological father.

 

[robycop3]

Baptism removes all sin, including original sin which is the deprivation of Adam's original justice. We contract both the gilt and the punishment for Adam and Eve's singular act in our birth. Jesus Christ was like us in every way except sin [Cf. Hebrews 4:15].

No, baptism doesn't remove anything except some dead skin. JESUS removes our sins by His power & authority. Baptism is our symbolic proclamation that we have become Christians and are obeying Jesus by being baptized.

If indeed the "Word was made flesh" just like us, born of woman just like us as you profess, and became a man just like us, and lived just like us and doesn't have sin, how does it occur that Jesus is without sin unless Mary was immaculate?

JoeT

Scripture tells us the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus within Mary's body. Obviously, we don't know the mechanism He used, except Mary was still a virgin til after Jesus was born.

No one is born with sin, but all except Jesus are born with a sin nature.

 

[robycop3]

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.

JoeT

Nonsense.

 

[Iconoclast]

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]​

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]



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.





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].



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

You do not know what I mean?
You posted Mary was a type of Eve....that is wrong.
I am glad you have asked me to produce scripture about Mary's children.
Keep that in mind when you offer the false ,unbiblical suggestion of the perpetual virginity of Mary....not taught in scripture anywhere.
Mark 6:3 mentions the physical brothers of Jesus by name and tells us He had sisters....
Joseph knew not Mary,until after the birth of Jesus.
To know is biblical language for normal sexual activity between married persons...Adam knew Eve and she conceived.
Joseph and Mary had a normal sex life as a healthy married couple.
You asked me for scripture and yet you have no scripture for any suggestion of perpetual virginity, or bodily assumption.
When you ask ex Catholics,you have to expect you will get scripture.

 

[Revmitchell]

Mary was a type of Eve? What kind of stupid heresy is that garbage?

 

[Walpole]

No, baptism doesn't remove anything except some dead skin. JESUS removes our sins by His power & authority. Baptism is our symbolic proclamation that we have become Christians and are obeying Jesus by being baptized.

Scripture directly refutes this.

Acts 2:38 —> "Then Peter said unto them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.'"

Acts 22:16 —> “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”


Here is St. Peter stating baptism is salvific and, contrary to what you posted above, does not remove dead skin or dirt from the flesh:

1 Peter 3:20 —> “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”

Scripture tells us the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus within Mary's body. Obviously, we don't know the mechanism He used, except Mary was still a virgin til after Jesus was born.

No one is born with sin, but all except Jesus are born with a sin nature.

Your rejection of baptism aside, this latest statement is more troubling. For if Jesus did not have our exact human nature (which you label as "sin nature"), then whatever nature He had is what He redeemed. That means you and I and all other sons of Adam who have a "sin nature" are still not redeemed.

"And since these children have a common inheritance of flesh and blood, he too shared that inheritance with them." (Heb 2:14)

 

[Walpole]

They were married. Joe and Mary got it on to the glory of God and had many kids. It's awesome. Embrace their love and enjoyment of sex in the confines of holy matrimony. My goodness, you miss the blessed union that God gave them and demand Mary and Joseph be chaste. Why? Certainly not because the Bible supports your thinking.

Your difficulty stems from failing to recognize that Joseph and Mary's marriage was not "normal," since they were in the constant presence of the Most High as the parents of the Incarnate Christ. Thus, their life of continence, like that of their Divine Son whom they raised, points to the Heavenly Kingdom, as opposed to a merely earthly and carnal kingdom.

Think incarnationally.

 

[Walpole]

You do not know what I mean?
You posted Mary was a type of Eve....that is wrong.
I am glad you have asked me to produce scripture about Mary's children.
Keep that in mind when you offer the false ,unbiblical suggestion of the perpetual virginity of Mary....not taught in scripture anywhere.
Mark 6:3 mentions the physical brothers of Jesus by name and tells us He had sisters....
Joseph knew not Mary,until after the birth of Jesus.
To know is biblical language for normal sexual activity between married persons...Adam knew Eve and she conceived.
Joseph and Mary had a normal sex life as a healthy married couple.
You asked me for scripture and yet you have no scripture for any suggestion of perpetual virginity, or bodily assumption.
When you ask ex Catholics,you have to expect you will get scripture.

First of all, I find it quite ironic that above your screen name is...an icon.

Secondly, if you think you have verses stating Mary's multiple subsequent pregnancies and thus can identify uterine siblings of Jesus, please post them.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Now wait just a minute... is the OP claiming that in order for Jesus to be born sinless...that Mary had to be born sinless? Why stop with Mary? Was Marys parents also sinless?

what a foolish doctrine. Mary was a sinner like the rest of mankind.

 

[JoeT]

You do not know what I mean?
You posted Mary was a type of Eve....that is wrong.
I am glad you have asked me to produce scripture about Mary's children.
Keep that in mind when you offer the false ,unbiblical suggestion of the perpetual virginity of Mary....not taught in scripture anywhere.
Mark 6:3 mentions the physical brothers of Jesus by name and tells us He had sisters....
Joseph knew not Mary,until after the birth of Jesus.
To know is biblical language for normal sexual activity between married persons...Adam knew Eve and she conceived.
Joseph and Mary had a normal sex life as a healthy married couple.
You asked me for scripture and yet you have no scripture for any suggestion of perpetual virginity, or bodily assumption.
When you ask ex Catholics,you have to expect you will get scripture.

Let's look at brothers.

BROTHERS WHERE NONE CAN BE FOUND!

LOOKING FOR BLOOD RELATED BROTHERS WHERE NONE CAN BE FOUND!

“Brother”, in Greek ἀδελφός (adelphos) According to Strong he gives the following definitions:

Lexicon :: Strong's G80 - adelphos

• a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
  
• having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
  
• any fellow or man
  
• a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
  
• an associate in employment or office
  
• brethren in Christ
  • a. his brothers by blood
    
  • b. all men
    
  • c. apostles
    
  • d. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

(Source: blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g80 )​

adelphos does not define the relationship between individual in antiquity clearly unless the relationship is defined. An example of unambiguous brothers:

And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. [Matthew 4:21]​

Brothers appear twice in the verse and furthermore points to the paterfamilias, the father sits in a boat with the brothers mending nets. Clearly verse has two brothers James and John with the same blood related father. Likewise ‘brothers’, mothers or fathers are clearly illustrated in similar verses such as Matthew 10:21; Mark 6:17; Luke 20:28 and John 11:21

adelphos is used in yet another form to distinguish national ancestry, particularly among the men of Israel. Those whose linage was from Abraham were considered ‘brethren’:

Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. [Acts 13:26]​

Here we see the relationship of men based on heritage. ‘Brethren’ are those who are of Abraham’s stock, one of the 12 tribes of Israel. But notice the distinction is ambiguous; one need only be a member of the 12 tribes to be “brothers.” Likewise see Matthew 5:47, after all, even today we refer to brothers as being from the same nation. You might recall the movie ‘Band of Brothers’ and the sense of pride and respect we have for our fathers of WWII who fought as a band of American brothers.

adelphos is also used to describe our fellow man regardless of nationality. An example:

For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, [Hebrews 2:11]​

Jesus suffered and died, said St. Paul, for all of mankind, not just the Jew, not just Jerusalem. Again there is an ambiguity of blood relationship except that all humans are related to Adam and Eve.

adelphos is used as an expression of affection. This is frequently expressed in the family of God, were no blood relationship exists. We see this brotherly love in Matthew 18:8, John 21:23 and Acts 6:3 and again in St. Paul’s work Romans 1:13:

Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. Romans 1:13​

Even today as indifferentism runs rampant we address people as ‘brother’.

adelphos is used in Sacred Scripture to express fellow officers, notice the use of brethren in Scripture also expresses those a hierarchy of office. Of particular note is St. Paul addressing the Colossians where St. Paul addresses the faithful as well as his fellow Bishop Timothy.

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, and Timothy, a brother, the saints and faithful brethren in Christ Jesus, who are at Colossa. [Colossians 1:1-2]​

Here we see Timothy as a brother Bishop in the Kingdom of God, the Catholic Church and we see the family of God in the faithful “brethren in Christ Jesus”. Please don’t tell me that all the people in the Church of Colossa are blood siblings of Jesus Christ.

You might also see Colossians 2:13 and Ephesians 4:21 where we see the distinguishing mark of office in ‘brother’. And there is no blood relationship inferred by the text.

adelphos is used for a brethren in the service of Christ.

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. [Matthew 25:40]​

These brethren in Christ are members of His Kingdom, His Church as the first fruit, the ministers of the Lord. They were called brothers because they too became adopted sons of God. Fear not, Christ said, tell my brothers to go to Galilee. Was Christ wasn’t referring only to James His supposed brother, but all those who walked with Him, then and all those who walk with Him now. Also, see also Hebrew 2:11 sqq. Matthew 28:10; John 20:17 Romans 8:29

So we see that when St. Paul refers to James the Lord’s brother, Paul is acknowledging James is an Apostle, as He is. He is acknowledging there is a hierarchy being established within the Church where certain leading members are organizing into the core Magisterium. Consequently, By His Mercy has correctly identified which adelphos was being used in the text.

1) James, son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:19-20, Mark 3:17, etc.)
2) James, son of Alpheus (Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, etc.)​

In fact we can name all the adelphos in Scripture such that none is left as the blood related sibling of Christ.

As an aside, it has been suggested that the Greek συγγενής (syggenēs), meaning in, or clansmen as well as countryman, would have been used if the blood relationship between “brothers” was something less than that of blood related siblings. However, it seems that the overwhelming number of the uses of “brother” meaning something other than a blood related sibling makes the argument weak if not void all together. As an example, Christ lists the various relationships distinguishing brethren from clansmen:

“Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee” [Luke 14:12]​

Even more important the reason that adelphos is frequently used by Christ because of His two greatest commandments, the first commandment defines the second. “Master,” Christ is asked, “which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.” [Matthew 22:36 - 40] Without exception Christ is calling all to be His brother as adopted sons of God. We are to treat all men in the same loving way as we Love God and ourselves.

You seem be a man of constant sorrows having trouble identifying brothers, dare we ask, O' Brother, Where Art Thou?

JoeT

 

[Particular]

Your difficulty stems from failing to recognize that Joseph and Mary's marriage was not "normal," since they were in the constant presence of the Most High as the parents of the Incarnate Christ. Thus, their life of continence, like that of their Divine Son whom they raised, points to the Heavenly Kingdom, as opposed to a merely earthly and carnal kingdom.

Think incarnationally.

Not normal???
Let's extend your logic.
The neighborhood kids friendship was not normal because they were in the presence of the Most High.
The Scribes and Pharisees interaction was not normal because they were in the presence of the Most High.
Pontius Pilates relationship with Jesus was not normal because he was in the Presence of the Most High.
Any interaction with Jesus is not normal because... Presence of the Most High.

God created sex, in the confines of marriage, as a glorious, God honoring, form of worship. It gives God joy to see humans in obedient behavior, of which sex in a marital relationship is beautiful and God honoring. Your attempt to deny this in Mary and Joseph is contemptible and a slap in God's face.

Everything in scripture points to Joseph and Mary being sexually active as husband and wife, just as any other husband and wife are sexually active. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was the mother of them all.
You have to do some incredible gymnastics with the text to explain away the fact that Mary and Joseph enjoyed a healthy sex life filled with children as a result.

 

[JoeT]

Now wait just a minute... is the OP claiming that in order for Jesus to be born sinless...that Mary had to be born sinless? Why stop with Mary? Was Marys parents also sinless?

what a foolish doctrine. Mary was a sinner like the rest of mankind.

I'm a patient person, we can wait as many minutes as you like. OP is claiming that God acted through Mary to preserve her from sin, both original sin and actual sin. She received sanctification and justification at her conception, just as you receive them at Baptism your parents state of soul did not affect receipt of those graces.

Mary received all the graces you received at baptism, and more when she was conceived so that she remains without stain of sin throughout her life. Mary was not 'forced' into a spousal union with God, she accepted humbly and freely saying to God's emissary: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her." [Luke 1:38].

Is it foolish? Please feel free to explain how Jesus Christ was born 'a man' from the womb of sin maintaining his humanity and Divinity in another way. How do you cram Divinity into a a soiled box keeping it clean? Read the second half of post 49 and tell us which of the philosophical categories you fit into: Ebionism, Adoptionism, Docetism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism or maybe Monophysitism? The only other way is through the Catholic Marian doctrines which maintains the view of Jesus Christ as God/man uniquely and inseparably joined, so much so that what is said of one can be said of the other.

JoeT

 

[utilyan]

I and others hold that the curse of sin was passed down through the male line. As His conception was a work of God. The line of Adam's curse was broken.

Luke 1
31“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.

 

[JoeT]

Not normal???
Let's extend your logic.
The neighborhood kids friendship was not normal because they were in the presence of the Most High.
The Scribes and Pharisees interaction was not normal because they were in the presence of the Most High.
Pontius Pilates relationship with Jesus was not normal because he was in the Presence of the Most High.
Any interaction with Jesus is not normal because... Presence of the Most High.

God created sex, in the confines of marriage, as a glorious, God honoring, form of worship. It gives God joy to see humans in obedient behavior, of which sex in a marital relationship is beautiful and God honoring. Your attempt to deny this in Mary and Joseph is contemptible and a slap in God's face.

Everything in scripture points to Joseph and Mary being sexually active as husband and wife, just as any other husband and wife are sexually active. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was the mother of them all.
You have to do some incredible gymnastics with the text to explain away the fact that Mary and Joseph enjoyed a healthy sex life filled with children as a result.

With all that sex going on it should be easy to produce a scriptural verse of the uterine siblings of Jesus as Wapole asked?

JoeT

 

[Walpole]

Not normal???
Let's extend your logic.
The neighborhood kids friendship was not normal because they were in the presence of the Most High.
The Scribes and Pharisees interaction was not normal because they were in the presence of the Most High.
Pontius Pilates relationship with Jesus was not normal because he was in the Presence of the Most High.
Any interaction with Jesus is not normal because... Presence of the Most High.

It is not normal to give a human nature to the Logos. Neither the neighborhood kids, the Scribes and Pharisees, Pontius Pilate nor anyone else other than Mary gave God a human nature. Thus her and her conjugal life was unique and anything but normal to say the least.

God created sex, in the confines of marriage, as a glorious, God honoring, form of worship. It gives God joy to see humans in obedient behavior, of which sex in a marital relationship is beautiful and God honoring. Your attempt to deny this in Mary and Joseph is contemptible and a slap in God's face.

Everything in scripture points to Joseph and Mary being sexually active as husband and wife, just as any other husband and wife are sexually active. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was the mother of them all.
You have to do some incredible gymnastics with the text to explain away the fact that Mary and Joseph enjoyed a healthy sex life filled with children as a result.

If everything in Scripture points to Mary having multiple subsequent maternities and therefore Jesus having uterine siblings, please post one single instance of Scripture stating this.