Did the incarnation happen upon conception or birth?

[jax5434]

Source? Quite curious.

When Does Life Begin? A Jewish View | Reclaiming Judaism
God Bless
Jax

 

[redleghunter]

"In those days, Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth.

Which would mean days maybe a week latest two Mary arrived at the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth. Jesus would be at the blastocyte stage.

Why would the pre-natal John the Baptist leap for joy unless that which was in Mary's womb is indeed what St. Elizabeth says here, that the Lord Himself--He who is very and truly God, was conceived and there in the womb of Mary, for which reason she is indeed truly called Theotokos, God-bearer.

Excellent assessment.

 

[redleghunter]

When Does Life Begin? A Jewish View | Reclaiming Judaism
God Bless
Jax

That's post Temple Jewish tradition.

Genesis counts souls with names at the fathering or begat.

 

[redleghunter]

Furthermore, for it to be an "incarnation" implied is that it happens after being born.

Why?

 

[redleghunter]

St. Athanasius

He and St Chrysostom were "rock stars" in my book.

 

[Saved.By.Grace]

The verses

The verse you list don't say that though.
That's just church tradition too.

As I said, the Greek of the verse says just that. In Matthew 1:16 we have it, "Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός", "Joseph the husband of Mary, out of whom was born Jesus Who is called Christ". The words in bold are firstly the Greek preposition, "ἐξ", which denotes the "source from which a thing is derived", and secondly "ἧς" is in the singular number and feminine in gender, which excludes Joseph from being the actual father of Jesus Christ, while making Mary the biological mother. This is exactly what is taught in Luke 1:35, " δύναμις Ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς θεοῦ", "the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born out of you shall be called the Son of God". Both "σοι" and "σοῦ" (you) are singular in number, excluding Joseph, and the Greek preposition "ἐκ" has the same meaning as that used in Matthew. "ἐκ σοῦ" (out of you) has been removed in most modern versions of the Bible, due to early heretical activity.

 

[Saved.By.Grace]

Of course, His name is Emmanuel, Matt 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”Luke 2:11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. Isa 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Who else could have come from Mary but the Son of God. And I am a baptist, but one does not have to be a RC to know that she gave birth to God the Son. Who else would He have been? No one is saying that it was His beginning, He is eternal, but came to earth as a man, that is not new doctrine, it is the focus of the whole bible. Tell us who it was if it was not the One spoken of in Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”

Well if you want to quote the Bible, then it is best that you keep your theology also Biblical. The correct language would be "Theanthropos" (the God-Man), as the term "theotokos" is not Biblically correct. Jesus was born from Mary as both 100% God and 100% Man, neither just Man, or just God. "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14) ,and "God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16), is what is right.

 

[Saved.By.Grace]

to be fair the options are "Conception" or "Birth"... there is no option "After Birth" but I get your point

So what difference do you see here? "conception" is referring to the actual time that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary by His power, at what time the eternal God the Son "entered" her womb (human language is very limited!). When we say "birth" this usually means after the child has been delivered from the mother's womb.

 

[Saved.By.Grace]

there seems to be some who see the incarnation was at birth not conception yet no one has voted this way. 100% voters say incarnation. How come those who say "birth" are so shy?

maybe they are afraid to be seen as being unbiblical!

 

[Saved.By.Grace]

I don't have issue to what theotokos represents but I think the language is irresponsible (and even more so Mother of God) I actually agree with Nestorius on this one and think christotokos is theologically more accurate. Mary gave birth to a baby that was inseparably divine and flesh and although you could emphasise the divine and call her theotokos this de-emphasises the flesh. It also would be irresponsible to call her anthropotokos (man-bearer) even though Mary did give birth to a child who was 100% flesh but again this de-emphasises the divine. Christ uniquely represents both the divine and the flesh without compromising them.

Actually both "theotokos" and "christotokos" are wrong, as the right term would be, ""Theanthropos" (the God-Man), as Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% Man from the time of His conception in Mary!

 

[DamianWarS]

Actually both "theotokos" and "christotokos" are wrong, as the right term would be, ""Theanthropos" (the God-Man), as Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% Man from the time of His conception in Mary!

If true the term should be "theanthropotokos" but I think that misses the mark as God-Man can invoke some heretical mythological concepts. Christ is paradoxically wholly divine and wholly flesh yet the two are inseparable. There is indeed a mystery involved which the name Christ fully captures without assuming the details.

 

[Saved.By.Grace]

If true the term should be "theanthropotokos" but I think that misses the mark as God-Man can invoke some heretical mythological concepts. Christ is paradoxically wholly divine and wholly flesh yet the two are inseparable. There is indeed a mystery involved which the name Christ fully captures without assuming the details.

I don't get by what you mean "if true"? Jesus Christ was when conceived in the womb of Mary, both fully God and fully Man, hence, God-Man, which is indeed taught in the Bible. You speak of mythology, well the same can be said for the "Virgin Birth", which is found in many myths. We as Christians deal in Bible Facts as Truth, regardless if there are non-biblical instances or not. There are no myths or fables in the Holy Bible, only Truth!

 

[DamianWarS]

So what difference do you see here? "conception" is referring to the actual time that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary by His power, at what time the eternal God the Son "entered" her womb (human language is very limited!). When we say "birth" this usually means after the child has been delivered from the mother's womb.

using the language "after birth" can mean a lot of different things. I know "birth" is somewhat flexible in time but let's keep the language simple to better represent those who do in fact see the incarnation at birth. We will let those people defend what they actually mean by it.

 

[Saved.By.Grace]

using the language "after birth" can mean a lot of different things. I know "birth" is somewhat flexible in time but let's keep the language simple to better represent those who do in fact see the incarnation at birth. We will let those people defend what they actually mean by it.

That is exactly why it is impossible to accept that the Incarnation could start any time after "conception"

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Why?

It's the sense I get from word usage in various contexts.

 

[DamianWarS]

I don't get by what you mean "if true"? Jesus Christ was when conceived in the womb of Mary, both fully God and fully Man, hence, God-Man, which is indeed taught in the Bible. You speak of mythology, well the same can be said for the "Virgin Birth", which is found in many myths. We as Christians deal in Bible Facts as Truth, regardless if there are non-biblical instances or not. There are no myths or fables in the Holy Bible, only Truth!

"theanthropos" is in fact a traditional term to represent the incarnation so under that language Mary could be called "theanthropotokos" or godman-bearer. But the issue with theotokos is not what it means it's the language being used. If theanthropotokos = "A" then christotokos = "A" and theanthropotokos = "A" too. I'm not suggesting a different definition but a word that is more theological correct. Rather than assuming doctrinal items inherent in theanthropos the name Christ should fully represent who Christ is while assuming no doctrinal language. Godman is rather crude too me and limited where but the word Christ doesn't need to try so hard because it is exactly what it is. Mary the mother of Christ is by no means limited as Christ inherits all the attributes of the incarnation and give no greater attention to the divine nor to the flesh.

 

[Saved.By.Grace]

"theanthropos" is in fact a traditional term to represent the incarnation so under that language Mary could be called "theanthropotokos" or godman-bearer. But the issue with theotokos is not what it means it's the language being used. If theanthropotokos = "A" then christotokos = "A" and theanthropotokos = "A" too. I'm not suggesting a different definition but a word that is more theological correct. Rather than assuming doctrinal items inherent in theanthropos the name Christ should fully represent who Christ is while assuming no doctrinal language. Godman is rather crude too me and limited where but the word Christ doesn't need to try so hard because it is exactly what it is. Mary the mother of Christ is by no means limited as Christ inherits all the attributes of the incarnation and give no greater attention to the divine nor to the flesh.

I don't see how God-Man can be "crude" in any way, as it states the Bible Truth on the Person of Jesus Christ, Who while on earth was not only God, or only Man, but both 100% God and 100% Man, apart from any sin in His human nature

 

[Alithis]

As I said, the Greek of the verse says just that. In Matthew 1:16 we have it, "Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός", "Joseph the husband of Mary, out of whom was born Jesus Who is called Christ". The words in bold are firstly the Greek preposition, "ἐξ", which denotes the "source from which a thing is derived", and secondly "ἧς" is in the singular number and feminine in gender, which excludes Joseph from being the actual father of Jesus Christ, while making Mary the biological mother. This is exactly what is taught in Luke 1:35, " δύναμις Ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς θεοῦ", "the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born out of you shall be called the Son of God". Both "σοι" and "σοῦ" (you) are singular in number, excluding Joseph, and the Greek preposition "ἐκ" has the same meaning as that used in Matthew. "ἐκ σοῦ" (out of you) has been removed in most modern versions of the Bible, due to early heretical activity.

Yes all that just means he was born forth from re womb of Mary
He came out from her womb after being in it.
Absolutely none of it directly means her egg was used.

No one is saying he was not born forth from a virgin.
Just pointing out that he was generated by the Holy Spirit. Not by the flesh. If any part of christ originated from Mary..them it would be tainted by the sinful blood of Adam.
But Jesus is without sin at any level.

And you must accept that No mother is required to give him a human nature.
Because Adam was fully man with a human nature.And he had no mother.

So I see a probable agenda in teaching what scripture does not say and implying mary had anything to do with the forming of the flesh of Jesus in her womb .
Niether her blood nor her egg nor any part of her at all is required for that.

She just carried him and bore him into the world .
He became flesh.
But He has no origin in the flesh.

 

[Alithis]

I don't see how God-Man can be "crude" in any way, as it states the Bible Truth on the Person of Jesus Christ, Who while on earth was not only God, or only Man, but both 100% God and 100% Man, apart from any sin in His human nature

Because this is a topic forbiden to discuss no one can give honest reply for discussion. The c.f. rules dictate silence.
Even though scripture clearly states it's not The case...
And it only becomes A case presented by peicing differing verses together.

 

[DamianWarS]

I don't see how God-Man can be "crude" in any way, as it states the Bible Truth on the Person of Jesus Christ, Who while on earth was not only God, or only Man, but both 100% God and 100% Man, apart from any sin in His human nature

theanthropos doesn't say 100% anything it just says "godman" and that's why it's crude.