The Crowned Salus Populi RomaniPosted on 10/02/2014 3:27:27 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
With the Virgin Birth, you actually have more evidence that it is true rather than untrue.
We have great historical testimony to it, and there is no proof that it did not happen -- obviously. But there is more.
How can it be proven by science? Well, I suppose this depends on your definition of "science". If you refer to that of the exact (quantitative), of course, it could be difficult. But theology, "the highest form of philosophy", does have an answer. And, just as you trust astronomers to tell you about many things beyond earth, you should trust the Church to tell you about God.
Before I can get into that, you must consider something: how did you come into being, and why do you exist? You cannot know much else aside from that you were ordained for some purpose. If you were not around, things would be different, the environment would be changed -- perhaps, this would not just cause some sort of "gap", but it would be destructive, even. You are necessary, to us and to the "Something" (God) from which you spring.
Let us say that the Virgin Birth, too, was necessary for things to properly function. It was ordained from the beginning, as God knew that He would come to reach out to the lost tribes of the house of Israel (Gentiles). The Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection were necessary for God's "re"-marriage, this time to the Church, His Bride. (This connects to the Church's teachings on the indissolubility of marriage.) The destroyed Temple and Jewish sacrificial method had to be replaced with a new, universal and eternal system. "No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins" (Mark 2:22). If something is truly necessary to proper existence, it comes into being.
Why has this Birth not been replicated, though? It was only needed once, just like you are only needed once. Likewise, there has to be a mystery to it, as there is mystery to you. Uniqueness and mystery pervade.
But St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, also, "According to the Philosopher [Aristotle] (De Gener. Animal. i, ii, iv), in conception the seed of the male is not by way of matter, but by way of agent: and the female alone supplies the matter. Wherefore though the seed of the male was lacking in Christ's conception, it does not follow that due matter was lacking." (Summa Theologiae, TP, Q. 28, A. 1, R. to Ob. 5)
That point is key. Mitochondrial DNA, for example, come exclusively from the mother, and there is also talk of "female sperm". "Female sperm" could, theoretically, develop within a woman, given the right impetus. (Of course, the impetus for normal procreation is male sperm.) The point is, the material necessary for life sufficiently exists within women -- that is evidenced by the fact that the X-chromosome contains far more genetic material than the Y-chromosome. All the material needs is the masculine influence to trigger it, to give it form and shape. Even without the Y-chromosome from a man, one could still be a "XX male", at least. And it is clear that the distinctions and origins of the Y-chromosome are a mystery, anyway [1, 2]. In Mary's exceptional case, this trigger was the Holy Spirit, which poured out abundantly on her and directed her body on what to do (Luke 1:30-35). "...[T]he Divine power, which is infinite, can transmute all matter to any form whatsoever" (Aquinas). This mutation can be rationally explained -- "random mutations" occur frequently.
Is it not ironic that we have confirmed this by reckless science, which has sought to artificially create "test-tube babies" [1, 2] and introduce "transgenderism"? God has drawn straight with our crooked lines, yet again.
Christ's body was not tangled to any imperfect man. This connects to scientific proof of Mary's perfection, too. It has been shown that groups of cells from infants transfer to mothers' brains [1, 2], after traveling through the placenta. Because of this, the Blessed Mother must have been perfect, for she literally had, in purity, the mind of Christ.
Why else must the Theotokos be a virgin? St. Augustine of Hippo wrote, "For it behooved that our Head, on account of a notable miracle, should be born after the flesh of a virgin, that He might thereby signify that His members would be born after the Spirit, of the Church a virgin..." (Of Holy Virginity)
—
Follow me, Answering Protestants, and Catholic Analysis on Twitter, Like Answering Protestants and Catholic Analysis on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants and Catholic Analysis to your Circles on Google+, and Subscribe to me or Catholic Analysis on YouTube.
—
The Crowned Salus Populi Romani
“This connects to scientific proof of Mary’s perfection, too.”
The divine identity, powers and attributes of Jesus, the Christ, are inherent to his being one of the three persons of the Triune Godhead. They are not dependent in any sense upon the attributes of ANY human person.
This we know because the Bible tells us so.
Yeah, that’s fine.
Article is anything but scientific.
Right. You don’t need faith if there is proof in the form of replicable experiment. I don’t need faith in gravity or the germ theory of disease.
However, I believe that Jesus Christ was born of a divine father, God, and a virgin human mother, Mary, and that He is, as one Divine person, possessed of both fully human and fully divine natures.
Science has nothing to contribute to the faith. Philosophy - logic, metaphysics - does, but ultimately, as the church has always taught, faith is a gift of God to the human soul.
I didn't mean that. I meant that science doesn't add anything to this particular point. In many other situations, science supports points that are asserted as revealed faith.
In Adam, the male, all have sinned, not in Eve. Sin is passed down from father to offspring. Eve’s name means mother of all living. This is because although every female inherits sin from her father, she doesn’t pass it down to her offspring. This is why Mary, a sin infested female (like a every human being ever born), can have a son, Jesus, and not pass sin to Him. Jesus Father being God and perfect of course did not pass sin down to Him, therefore He was born without sin, and being both God and man.
Gen 3:20
And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living
Rom 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
1Co 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
XX male syndrome (also called de la Chapelle syndrome, for Albert de la Chapelle, who characterized it in 1972[1][2]) is a rare sex chromosomal disorder. Usually, it is caused by unequal crossing over between X and Y chromosomes during meiosis in the father, which results in the X chromosome containing the normally-male SRY gene. When this X combines with a normal X from the mother during fertilization, the result is an XX male.
Effeminate, possible gynecomastia, small imperfectly formed genitalia, sterile, low to nonexistent libido. You're saying that Jesus Christ was intersex.
The lengths some go in order to try and rationalize their Mariology. It's just too bizarre.
So you actually did write this inane prattle?
God already provided an answer:
John 1:14 (KJV)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Luke 1:34-35 (KJV)
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Hebrews 2:14-18 (KJV)
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.
Isaiah 55:9-11 (KJV)
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Its futile trying to understand spiritual things from a natural standpoint. Mary simply believed God’s Word, accepted it as Truth and cooperated as God’s handmaid. Contrast that with Zacharias’ doubt and subsequent “sign” to prevent him from undermining God’s plan for John the Baptist.
Where does Lilith fit into the picture?
———This connects to scientific proof of Mary’s perfection, too. It has been shown that groups of cells from infants transfer to mothers’ brains [1, 2], after traveling through the placenta. Because of this, the Blessed Mother must have been perfect, for she literally had, in purity, the mind of Christ.-——
Hummm....Setting up a false premise about the virgin birth....that there is doubt within Protestant churches about the Virgin birth...to prove Mary was perfect....
Geez, reminds me of the “means justify the ends” liberal argument...
so you think that God would send His begotten son to reside in a less than perfect environment????Why???
Legendarily.
Any chance “virgin” could have meant young and/or unmarried woman?
Luke 1
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
She was a virgin because she had not known a man, as for the rest of your comment, I agree.
If science ever proves that God is real and that Jesus was the son of God and born of a virgin and the Government starts recognizing Christ as king of the earth.
I WILL QUIT BELIEVING.
Let’s see if I get your thought... if I understand it, it is that Jesus would have inherited a sinful nature from Mary had she been a sinner. Right?
If this is such an important doctrine, why is the Bible SILENT on Mary’s conception while Christ’s being born of a virgin is PROMINENTLY told?
But is it really necessary? the biblical solution to this non-problem is that Jesus Himself was miraculously protected from being polluted by sin while He was inside Mary’s womb.
If God can do anything (and He can), would He not be able to protect Jesus from sin? Of course He is.
Therefore, Mary being sinless is neither necessary nor biblical (because it isn’t there).
Re: Use of the Hebrew word “almah” in prophetic Scripture. I think the most obvious reason why we know the passage in Isaiah 7:14 really meant “virgin” and not simply “young woman” is that God, speaking through the prophet Isaiah, said it was to be a SIGN unto them. What possible significance could a young woman being with child have as a sign???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.