Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

patricius79 · Nov 4, 2015

Standing Up said:
Yes, there was testimony of EV Mary; we find this in PoJames, GoPeter, Valentinus, and Marcion. The alternative was John--came by water and blood, or Paul--made of a woman, or Tertullian--natural birth in normal way, or Clement of Alexandria--Mary did not remain in the childbirth state, or Cyril of Jerusalem--female virgins emulate Mary's 9-months.

What you won't find at that stage is anyone saying it was a normal birth with cord, placenta, water and blood and Mary remained a virgin. The two ideas were completely separate.
.

I think that that argument assumes that the Catholic Church says it was a normal birth. But to my knowledge she does not. Rather, she teaches that the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit, and gave birth without losing her physical virginal integrity.

Nor was a it a normal thing for someone to walk on water. Rather, it was a supernatural walking on water, and a supernatural birth. Based on nature, which is God's own creation, but done by a miracle, which is part of God's act of redeeming us.

There's nothing Docetist about Christ working miracles, healing a man's eyes with mud and spittle, or walking through walls, rising from the dead, or being conceived without sex, or being born without the loss of His Mother's physical virginal integrity.

John doesn't say that Mary lost her physical virginal integrity. He does say that we must "munch" Christ's Flesh and Drink His Blood. John 6:53, John 6:54, John 6:55, John 6:56, John 6:57, John 6:58

I think it doesn't make sense to deny the literal, physical meaning of these words--Christ's emphatic, repeated insistence that we must munch His Flesh--and then read into a passage about coming through water and blood.

As for St. Clement, I believe we've already seen that Clement says that Mary was not found in the puerpural state.

Justinangel says that Hippolytus, Justin, and Irenaeus say that the Virgin Mary gave birth miraculously, and I believe him because he obviously knows more than any of us.

Likewise, the great fathers like Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Athanasius, and Cyril say that Mary is Ever-Virgin.

These were great saints and knew the Scriptures and Tradition profoundly and also lived much closer to the time of Christ.

Peace to all those of goodwill, and to those who honor the Immaculate Virgin, the Mother of God, and worship her Son Jesus Christ!

patricius79 · Nov 4, 2015

justinangel said:
So what you're saying is that Jesus wasn't a divine Person in the flesh until he was 30. If I'm not mistaken, this presupposition is unscriptural and smacks of heresy. Adoptionism is the Christological idea that Jesus was born human and became divine when he was adopted by God at his baptism. Scripture does not record everything Jesus did in his entire life. And what is recorded about him prior to his baptism and the beginning of his public ministry is only that which is of primary Christological and soteriological significance.

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
John 21, 25

The Virgin Mary's conceiving and bearing (giving birth to) Jesus was a secret work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit operated supernaturally to create the son of man in Mary's womb from her humanity. Once Jesus was conceived by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit, he developed by the mediate agency of secondary causes according to the natural laws that God had set in place for the procreation of human life. The Greek word gennoa (to conceive) refers to the male active principle of begetting human life. But the Holy Spirit worked apart from the male principle by causing the conception of Himself. The conception is the fruit of the Holy Sprit in Mary's womb. He set in motion the designed course of Mary's pregnancy, but without male seed. Jesus acquired his physical human attributes from Mary, the female passive principle of begetting human life. He was the woman's seed (Gen. 3:15). Jesus was not formed out of the substance of the Holy Spirit, who served simply as the efficient cause of his humanity. His flesh and blood were not of ethereal matter. Once the gestation period was complete, the Holy Spirit acted as the immediate cause of Jesus' birth which, as a result, was supernatural as well. There is no division in the common activity of the Trinity, So in the hypostatic order, the divine Word and the Holy Spirit worked in unison to beget the son of man.

In John 6: 23-53, the original Greek word phago ("to eat" or "physically consume") is used nine times. So a symbolic interpretation is out of the question. Physical consumption is strongly emphasized here. In John 54, 56, 57, and 58, the evangelist uses an even more literal verb. The Greek word trogo means "to gnaw", "chew" or "crunch". The word is used on two other occasions in the NT (Mt. 24:38; Jn. 13:18) to literally mean gnaw on and chew meat. So even if the word phago might have a spiritual application, it doesn't when combined with the word trogo. There is not one verse in Scripture where trogo is used figuratively. In John 6:55, Jesus stresses that his flesh is "real" food and his blood is "real" drink. The Greek word John uses is alethes which means "really" and "truly". It is used by the speaker only when there are doubts concerning the reality of what he means to say. The Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they asked: “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).They wouldn't have asked this question by having doubted what they understood Jesus meant to say if they thought Jesus was speaking figuratively. The Greek word for flesh is sarx. It always literally means flesh. See John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39. The Jews knew that Jesus literally meant his own flesh, which explains why many of his own followers decided to leave him at this point. They didn't walk away because Jesus failed to provide a spiritual explanation. Jesus would have provided an explanation if he had spoken figuratively. He always explained the meanings of his parables, didn't he? Instead he asked his disciples if what he had said offended them (6:61). He even asked the Twelve if they wanted to leave, too (6:67). No, many who followed Jesus deserted him because they knew exactly what he literally meant which they found hard to believe for lack of faith, just as Protestants do today. They asked in John 6:60: "Who can listen to it?" In other words, "I can't believe my ears!"

Now Protestants who voice their objection to this Catholic dogma and attempt to refute it cite the phrase "the spirit gives life" (Jn. 6:63) to show that Jesus was speaking symbolically. However, Jesus used this phrase to stress that his disciples needed supernatural faith as opposed to human reasoning to understand and accept what he truly was saying. He even associated his disciples' disbelief with Judas' betrayal (6:64, 70). In John 6:3, Jesus draws a comparison between the spirit and the flesh only to teach about the necessity of having supernatural faith as opposed to a natural understanding. There is not one place in all of Scripture where the word spirit is to be taken symbolically as an expression of figurative language beyond the context of faith. "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (Jn 3:6). The spirit has to do with that which is supernatural, flesh with that which is natural. The juxtaposition of the two mark two literal distinctions which oppose each other. In In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, for instance, Paul uses the spirit-flesh paradigm to teach that unspiritual people have not received the gift of faith, but are still in the flesh. Their natural passions keep them in bondage.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110)

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165)

PAX

That is beautiful.

A question: I know that both the conception and the birth were miraculous and that Mary retained her Virginal integrity in conceiving by the Spirit and giving birth.

As far as the removal of the amniotic sac, placenta, and cord: that would all have been done miraculously rather than in an ordinary way, right?

That at least is my opinion. A priest here (in the comments) says that there are a number of possibilities, as long as we affirm that there was no rupture of the virginal integrity of our lady's womb. he thinks Mary, the New Eve, reabsorbed the cord into her body
http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/12/virgin-birth-of-christ-what-church.html

Standing Up · Nov 4, 2015

justinangel said:
So you believe Jesus was conceived by Joseph's seed? Or have you lost your train of thought?

The law applied to the first born who opened the matrix.

Standing Up · Nov 4, 2015

patricius79 said:
I think that that argument assumes that the Catholic Church says it was a normal birth. But to my knowledge she does not. Rather, she teaches that the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit, and gave birth without losing her physical virginal integrity.

Correct. Again, what you won't find in the early arguments is anyone who believes it was a normal birth AND virginity remained intact. Instead you'll find PoJ and Valentinus and RC (as you mention) who argue for virginity intact AND abnormal birth. Or you'll find those who argue for a normal birth and virginity over.

Standing Up · Nov 4, 2015

patricius79 said:
As for St. Clement, I believe we've already seen that Clement says that Mary was not found in the purpureal state.

Correct. Mary was not found in the childbirth state (puerperal) because she gave birth normally with cord, afterbirth, blood and water. She did not remain a virgin. To Clement of Alexandria, the scripture was virginal.

Standing Up · Nov 4, 2015

justinangel said:
Confirmation Bias (Myside Bias)

The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's

Valentinius believed ...

Valentinus was one of many theories at that time. There was Pontus, Marcion, Apelles, PoJames, and others, but they all centered on an abnormal birth, so as to maintain virginity.

But certain disciples, compelled to be wiser than their teacher, concede to Christ real flesh, without effect, however, on their denial of His nativity. He might have had, they say, a flesh which was not at all born. So we have found our way “out of a frying-pan,” as the proverb runs, “into the fire,”—from Marcion to Apelles. This man having first fallen from the principles of Marcion into (intercourse with) a woman, in the flesh, and afterwards shipwrecked himself, in the spirit, on the virgin Philumene, proceeded from that time to preach that the body of Christ was of solid flesh, but without having been born.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.vi.html

From the frying pan into the fire. Again at that time you had a choice. Abnormal birth AND virginity intact. OR normal birth and virginity over. Centuries later the two were melded into a birth somehow and virginity intact somehow.

We can also see the theory developing. As I mentioned, the belief of Christ in the flesh was a key of Christianity. A star-dust body wouldn't do. It had to be real flesh. But still, they had to maintain their virgin's belief that required that abnormal birth (without having been born).

The virginitas in partu was a traditional Marian doctrine of the Church as early as the 1st century.

Let's see that doctrine of a normal human birth and virginity intact pre 200ad.

Standing Up · Nov 4, 2015

justinangel said:
So what you're saying is that Jesus wasn't a divine Person in the flesh until he was 30.

We know one lost the argument as they resort to ad hominem, rather than address the post.
Show us Christ doing miracles pre age 30. And don't argue from silence.

patricius79 · Nov 5, 2015

Standing Up said:
Correct. Again, what you won't find in the early arguments is anyone who believes it was a normal birth AND virginity remained intact.

I suppose that's because it is not normal for a woman to retain her bodily virginal integrity before, during, and after giving birth, as the Mother of God did.

The true Church teaches that the conception and birth of Christ were miraculous.

Correct. Mary was not found in the childbirth state (puerperal) because she gave birth normally with cord, afterbirth, blood and water.

Clement says that she was not found in the childbirth (puerperal) state, which would agree with the Church's teaching that the birth was miraculous, so that the New Eve's bodily virginal integrity was retained and sanctified by the birth of her Son, the God-man.

justinangel · Nov 5, 2015

Standing Up said:
We know one lost the argument as they resort to ad hominem, rather than address the post.
Show us Christ doing miracles pre age 30. And don't argue from silence.

No ad hominem. I pointed out the implication of your assertion that Jesus never performed any miracles before he reached the age of 30. Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus performed miracles by the power of his divine person. By his divinity, Jesus gave the Twelve and many other disciples the ability to work miracles. In any event, you are the one who is arguing from silence. You claim Jesus never performed any miracles before the age of 30 because they aren't recorded in the NT. If you're going to accuse someone of committing a logical fallacy, first learn what it means, or you might end up shooting yourself in the foot.

:angel:

justinangel · Nov 5, 2015

Standing Up said:
Valentinus was one of many theories at that time. There was Pontus, Marcion, Apelles, PoJames, and others, but they all centered on an abnormal birth, so as to maintain virginity.

But certain disciples, compelled to be wiser than their teacher, concede to Christ real flesh, without effect, however, on their denial of His nativity. He might have had, they say, a flesh which was not at all born. So we have found our way “out of a frying-pan,” as the proverb runs, “into the fire,”—from Marcion to Apelles. This man having first fallen from the principles of Marcion into (intercourse with) a woman, in the flesh, and afterwards shipwrecked himself, in the spirit, on the virgin Philumene, proceeded from that time to preach that the body of Christ was of solid flesh, but without having been born.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.vi.html

From the frying pan into the fire. Again at that time you had a choice. Abnormal birth AND virginity intact. OR normal birth and virginity over. Centuries later the two were melded into a birth somehow and virginity intact somehow.

We can also see the theory developing. As I mentioned, the belief of Christ in the flesh was a key of Christianity. A star-dust body wouldn't do. It had to be real flesh. But still, they had to maintain their virgin's belief that required that abnormal birth (without having been born).

You're reading into the text and twisting the historical facts. Mary's virginity during the birth of Jesus was never an issue in early Christendom. The manner of the Incarnation was. The Trinitariansim and Christology of the Gnostics clashed with the orthodox teachings of the Church according to the Apostolic Tradition. Irenaeus contended with them, but he believed in the miraculous virgin birth, as much as he believed in the supernatural conception of Jesus. I've already pointed this out to you by citing two texts of his, which you choose to ignore. His belief in the virginitas in partu is consistent with his perception of Mary as the new Eve. He equated Mary's chastity with her sinlessness. The early Church believed that the woman's going into labour and giving birth in pain was a penalty for Eve's transgression. Since Mary was regarded as Eve's anti-type, the penalty couldn't have applied to her.

It's ironic how some people reject the lesser miracle of Christ's virginal birth while accepting the greater miracle of his virginal conception. This just goes to show how some people pick and choose what they wish to believe for their own personal reasons. For them Isaiah 7:14 is acceptable, but Isaiah 66:7 is "specious". The truth is that this Marian doctrine became an issue with the rise of modernism and liberalism in post 18th century Christendom. Faith had been substituted for human reasoning and adulterated by western cultural sensibilities.

What we have received is not the spirit of the world,' but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom' but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirt' makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”

But we have the mind of Christ.
1 Corinthians 2, 12-16

Let's see that doctrine of a normal human birth and virginity intact pre 200ad.

The Ascension of Isaiah and the Odes of Solomon are 1st century works which bear witness to the existence of this Marian tradition in the nascent church.

:angel:

Standing Up · Nov 5, 2015

patricius79 said:
I suppose that's because it is not normal for a woman to retain her bodily virginal integrity before, during, and after giving birth, as the Mother of God did.

No it wouldn't be normal at all. Welcome to the camp of Valentinus, Marcion, Apelles, and all the others.

justinangel · Nov 5, 2015

Standing Up said:
The law applied to the first born who opened the matrix.

You believe, then, that Jesus wasn't only born under the law, but also subject to it along with all firstborn Jewish males.

The Mosaic law applies only to those who are born according to the laws of nature. It embraces the full spectrum of the natural process of human procreation, from the moment of conception to the time of birth. Jesus was not conceived by the seed of Joseph, but by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit. There's no half-way about it. Both his conception and birth were unnatural, or else Jesus would be entirely subject to the law by nature. Jesus' humanity was an attribute of his; he was one divine person in the flesh. The law applies to persons - not attributes.

בדַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּו‍ֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא

Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives כִּי תַזְרִיעַ and gives birth to a male לֵאמֹר אִשָּׁה, she shall be unclean for seven days; as [in] the days of her menstrual flow, she shall be unclean.
Leviticus 12, 2 [The Hebrew Bible]

In the same vein, the Mosaic law did not apply to Mary, since she conceived and bore Jesus unnaturally.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear (give birth to) a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7, 14

The Hebrew Bible has olme and ere (literally damsel and pregnant one) instead of "a virgin will conceive" (parthenos and gennoa) as we have in the Septuagint, which Matthew cites in his gospel. And in the Hebrew Bible we have:
וֹי ֶל ֶדת u·ildth ( literally "one giving birth") which is the intended meaning of the verb " to bear" (yalad) as I've already pointed out, albeit your objection to this definition.

Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.
Isaiah 66, 7

תִּחיל thchil she-is-travailing
ָי ָל ָדה ilde she-gives-birth (bears / brings forth)

PAX

Standing Up · Nov 5, 2015

justinangel said:
The Ascension of Isaiah and the Odes of Solomon are 1st century works which bear witness to the existence of this Marian tradition in the nascent church.

Odes of Solomon 19---

A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord's kindness.
The Son is the cup, and the Father is He who was milked; and the Holy Spirit is She who milked Him;
Because His breasts were full, and it was undesirable that His milk should be ineffectually released.
The Holy Spirit opened Her bosom, and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father.
Then She gave the mixture to the generation without their knowing, and those who have received it are in the perfection of the right hand.
The womb of the Virgin took it, and she received conception and gave birth.
So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies.
And she labored and bore the Son but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose.
And she did not require a midwife, because He caused her to give life.
She brought forth like a strong man with desire, and she bore according to the manifestation, and she acquired according to the Great Power.
And she loved with redemption, and guarded with kindness, and declared with grandeur.
Hallelujah.

Where is the normal birth? Even assuming a birth without pain, it still entails normal umbilical cord, placenta, and water and blood.

Incidentally, " At least one scholar has suggested they may have an origin in Valentinian Gnosticism,..."

Ascension of Isaiah 11---
CHAPTER 11

AFTER this I saw, and the angel who spoke with me, who conducted me, said unto me: "Understand, Isaiah son of Amoz; for for this purpose have I been sent from God."

2. And I indeed saw a woman of the family of David the prophet, named Mary, and Virgin, and she was espoused to a man named Joseph, a carpenter, and he also was of the seed and family of the righteous David of Bethlehem Judah.

3. And he came into his lot. And when she was espoused, she was found with child, and Joseph the carpenter was desirous to put her away.

4. But the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world, and after that Joseph did not put her away, but kept Mary and did not reveal this matter to any one.

5. And he did not approach May, but kept her as a holy virgin, though with child.

6. And he did not live with her for two months.

7. And after two months of days while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone.

8. It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished.

9. And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived.

10. And when her husband Joseph said unto her: "What has astonished thee?" his eyes were opened and he saw the infant and praised God, because into his portion God had come.

11. And a voice came to them: "Tell this vision to no one."

12. And the story regarding the infant was noised broad in Bethlehem.

13. Some said: "The Virgin Mary hath borne a child, before she was married two months."

14. And many said: "She has not borne a child, nor has a midwife gone up (to her), nor have we heard the cries of (labour) pains." And they were all blinded respecting Him and they all knew regarding Him, though they knew not whence He was.

Nothing docetic in that narrative :doh:

Besides it contradicts scripture's account and prophecy of His birth in Bethlehem.

So nothing from that time that tells us of a normal human birth and virginity intact. Instead we have Valentinus, Appelles, Marcion, PoJ, AoI, OoS all relaying a docetic type birth and virginity intact.

Or, we can go with scripture (God with us), born of a woman, came by water and blood and then find this in the tradition of Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyril of Jerusalem.

Standing Up · Nov 6, 2015

justinangel said:
No ad hominem. I pointed out the implication of your assertion that Jesus never performed any miracles before he reached the age of 30. Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus performed miracles by the power of his divine person. By his divinity, Jesus gave the Twelve and many other disciples the ability to work miracles. In any event, you are the one who is arguing from silence. You claim Jesus never performed any miracles before the age of 30 because they aren't recorded in the NT. If you're going to accuse someone of committing a logical fallacy, first learn what it means, or you might end up shooting yourself in the foot.

Read about the shadow. First is baptism of Aaron (Christ) by Moses (John the Baptist), then comes clothing of service for priest work (healing, miracles, etc). See also Number 4:43 (30 years to 50 years age).

So no, I'm not arguing from silence. But show us where Christ performed His own miracle birth.

patricius79 · Nov 6, 2015

Standing Up said:
No it wouldn't be normal at all.

I don't think it is normal for a woman to conceive a child who is God by the Holy Spirit. But this is the miracle that God worked through the New Eve, the Ever-Virgin, Mother of God. I don't think any miracles are "normal".

Standing Up · Nov 6, 2015

patricius79 said:
I don't think it is normal for a woman to conceive a child who is God by the Holy Spirit. But this is the miracle that God worked through the New Eve, the Ever-Virgin, Mother of God. I don't think any miracles are "normal".

You've shifted the goal posts. We all agree the virgin conceived and bore a child. At His birth, the question is what happened? Was it a normal human birth or was it a non-normal birth somehow? On one side is scripture (John, Paul, Psalms), Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Tertullian who all argue for a normal human birth (the Word was made flesh). On the other side was the belief that evolved from a star-dust body birthed somehow to a fleshly body birthed somehow; this is what Valentinus, Apelles, Marcion, PoJames, and Ascension of Isaiah taught.

patricius79 · Nov 7, 2015

Standing Up said:
You've shifted the goal posts. We all agree the virgin conceived and bore a child. At His birth, the question is what happened? Was it a normal human birth or was it a non-normal birth somehow?

Just as the conception was miraculous, so too was the birth.

bbbbbbb · Nov 7, 2015

patricius79 said:
Just as the conception was miraculous, so too was the birth.

So, you do not believe that Jesus Christ actually came in flesh and blood through the process of human birth, but magically formed in Mary's womb and slipped somehow through her (by not through her birth canal) to take on an appearance of flesh and blood, but without actually being flesh and blood?

Standing Up · Nov 7, 2015

patricius79 said:
Just as the conception was miraculous, so too was the birth.

Scripture disagrees.

But Paul, too, silences these critics7216 7216 Grammaticis. when he says, “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman.”7217 7217 Gal. iv. 4. Does he mean through a woman, or in a woman? Nay more, for the sake of greater emphasis, he uses the word “made” rather than born, although the use of the latter expression would have been simpler. But by saying “made,” he not only confirmed the statement, “The Word was made flesh,”7218 7218 John i. 14. but he also asserted the reality of the flesh which was made of a virgin. We shall have also the support of the Psalms on this point, not the “Psalms” indeed of Valentinus the apostate, and heretic, and Platonist, but the Psalms of David, the most illustrious saint and well-known prophet. He sings to us of Christ, and through his voice Christ indeed also sang concerning Himself. Hear, then, Christ the Lord speaking to God the Father: “Thou art He that didst draw7219 7219 Avulsisti. me out of my 539mother’s womb.”7220 7220 Ps. xxii. 9. Here is the first point. “Thou art my hope from my mother’s breasts; upon Thee have I been cast from the womb.”7221 7221 Vers. 9, 10. Here is another point. “Thou art my God from my mother’s belly.”7222 7222 Ver. 10. Here is a third point. Now let us carefully attend to the sense of these passages. “Thou didst draw me,” He says, “out of the womb.” Now what is it which is drawn, if it be not that which adheres, that which is firmly fastened to anything from which it is drawn in order to be sundered? If He clove not to the womb, how could He have been drawn from it? If He who clove thereto was drawn from it, how could He have adhered to it, if it were not that, all the while He was in the womb, He was tied to it, as to His origin,7223 7223 i.e. of His flesh. by the umbilical cord, which communicated growth to Him from the matrix? Even when one strange matter amalgamates with another, it becomes so entirely incorporated7224 7224 Concarnatus et convisceratus: “united in flesh and internal structure.” with that with which it amalgamates, that when it is drawn off from it, it carries with it some part of the body from which it is torn, as if in consequence of the severance of the union and growth which the constituent pieces had communicated to each other.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.xx.html

Normal flesh and blood birth in the normal way. Marcion, PoJames, and the others denied this by denying the cord, placenta, water and blood at birth.

justinangel · Nov 8, 2015

Standing Up said:
Odes of Solomon 19---

The womb of the Virgin took it, and she received conception and gave birth.

So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies.

And she laboured and bore the Son but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose.

And she did not require a midwife, because He caused her to give life.

She brought forth like a strong man with desire, and she bore according to the manifestation, and she acquired according to the Great Power.

Where is the normal birth? Even assuming a birth without pain, it still entails normal umbilical cord, placenta, and water and blood.

Mary couldn't have actually gone into physical labour, or else she would have experienced pain and required the assistance of a midwife. Her going into labour may be taken figuratively to emphasize that Jesus had taken his flesh and blood from her before she bore him according to the manifestation wrought by the Holy Spirit. It may even allude to the spiritual fact that Jesus is the firstborn of many brethren (Rom. 8:29). Anyway, most Docetists believed that Mary never conceived and bore Jesus. The few who did believed Jesus merely took his inanimate flesh from her, which Jesus subsequently substituted for his ethereal animate flesh. There were some who even thought Joseph was the active cause of Jesus' conception. Most, however, believed Jesus had his life before he passed into and out of Mary. He received it whole from the eternal Craftsman. In their theology, God did not cause Mary to give life to the son of man. According to them, it follows, she herself did not give him his humanity and bear him in a miraculous way, since they didn't believe Jesus was made in the flesh. She was chosen only to appear to be his mother. She never became Jesus' real mother by actually conceiving him. Her pregnancy was all a divine illusion. You're drawing a faulty co-relation. An abnormal birth and conception do not necessarily mean Jesus was merely the semblance of a man. Do you think all Germans are Nazis by the fact that they are German, or that religiously non-Jewish circumcised men are in fact Jewish because they are circumcised?

Incidentally, " At least one scholar has suggested they may have an origin in Valentinian Gnosticism,..."

All he can do is make a suggestion. However, there's nothing essentially docetic about the Odes.

PAX

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Yes

No

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Called to Jesus Through Mary

On and on

On and on

On and on

On and on

On and on

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Newbie

Newbie

On and on

Newbie

On and on

On and on

Called to Jesus Through Mary

On and on

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Well-Known Member

On and on

Newbie

Similar threads