 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
BillK
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 39 |
| First Name: | Bill | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Revert to Catholicism (dabled in Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Evangelical, Messianic ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 07:21 am |
|
I was reflecting on Mary the other day and started pondering something that really got my head spinning....
We know that Jesus is God made flesh - fully human and also fully divine. We also know that Jesus is the fruit of Mary's womb and that Mary was conceived by the H.S.
Here is what I've been wondering.... Does Jesus look like Mary? In other words, do Jesus and Mary share the same genetic make up? Did the Holy Spirit impregnate Mary or was a fertilized egg placed in Mary?
The ramifications of this answer are mind boggling to me. I suspect the answer is that a fertilized egg was placed in Marys womb. Otherwise, wouldn't Mary be partly divine?
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 219 |
| First Name: | Jeff (you can call me "japhy" | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 05:12 pm |
|
Mary was not just a "vessel" like a glass is for liquid: a glass holds liquid but isn't actually a part of the liquid, it just contains it; a glass does not give anything of itself to the liquid.
No, Mary's womb was part of the creative process. In the Nicene Creed, we say that Jesus was "incarnate of the Virgin Mary", meaning he took flesh from her, in the same way that we are incarnate of our mother and father. Jesus was special in that he was without human father -- one of Mary's eggs was miraculously fertilized (how, I don't think the Church says, other than that it was by the power of the Holy Spirit). Jesus's flesh comes from Mary. It would be expected then that, yes, Jesus and Mary shared human genetic makeup; Jesus would have looked like his mother in some respects.
This doesn't make Mary divine in any way, shape, or form. The divinity of Jesus does not require the divinity of Mary at all.
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 07:26 pm |
|
BillK wrote: Here is what I've been wondering.... Does Jesus look like Mary? In other words, do Jesus and Mary share the same genetic make up? Did the Holy Spirit impregnate Mary or was a fertilized egg placed in Mary?
We believe that Mary is truly the Mother of God. That means her genetic material provided Jesus' humanity. There are unproven accounts that claim his resemblance to his mother was striking and startling. They are not proven factually and we are not bound to believe them, but the dogma of Mary as Mother of God does, in my opinion, demand that we believe Mary was the mother of our Savior in every human way except, of course, that she did not "know man".
Catholics United for the Faith, in their Faith Fact on Mary as Mother of God, put it like this:
What Is Motherhood?
To understand the Church’s teaching on Mary’s divine maternity, it is important to clarify what we mean by motherhood.
Motherhood is the relationship that is established when a woman communicates her own human nature to her children. This gift of nature occurs at conception, and is continually nurtured through gestation, childbirth, and the life of the child. At conception a human person, a real son or daughter -- and not simply a physical body -- comes into being. And this is true even though we know that the mother did not create the child’s soul, which is created and infused directly by God.
Mary did not give Jesus His divine nature or His divine personhood, which was His from all eternity. Nor did she give Him His human soul, which was infused when He became man in her virginal womb (cf. Catechism, no. 471). As a true mother, Mary did give Jesus a human nature identical to her own, and she is the mother of a person, not merely a body or a nature.
Now here is the twist. In Jesus Christ, there are two natures -- human and divine -- and these natures are united without confusion in one divine Person, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, in what is called the hypostatic union. Since Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is a divine Person -- that is, God -- then Mary is rightly called the “Mother of God.”
There are two sonships, but only one Son. Christ is the true Son of God the Father from all eternity, but He is also the true Son of Mary, born in the fullness of time (cf. Gal. 4:4).
The dogma of Mary as Mother of God was defined at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and is the oldest of the Marian doctrines.
I take this to mean not that a fertilized egg was implanted in her womb (making her a surrogate mother) but rather that her own egg was miraculously fertilized.
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1400 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 10:28 pm |
|
I guess this means when we all get down to it, Mary looked like most teenage Jewish girls in her time and area. Of course, all those renaissance painters, et al whose artworks fill the galleries from Washington DC to Florence Italy and the Vatican Art Museum no doubt picked all the prettiest Italian girls they could find.
We can rest assured she wasn't a blue-eyed blonde, although that was a popular notion in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when Wagnerian notions were becoming as acceptable as were genteel anti-semitism in the hoity toiti artsy crowd.
But if we're going to bring science into this, by all means, let's avoid what one ever so brilliant anti-catholic "scientist" came up with for a research project. (NO doubt we probably paid for it through federal grants.) This erudite man of science "borrowed" a consecrted host and used it in a lab experiment to see if one could actually find flesh and blood.
Odd how any kid with a decent CCD formation could've disabused Prof. Knowitall of his fool's errand in five minutes, thus also saving him face and our money in a clear violation of the ever-so-holy of secular holy documents, the COnstitution where Jefferson's words about any walls can't be found.
It's not what Mary looked like: It's who she is and why she's so dear.  Now that's what counts.
____________________
James Michael Curley to a young Thomas “Tip” O’Neill -- “Son, it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2169 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 07:18 pm |
|
We also know that Jesus is the fruit of Mary's womb and that Mary was conceived by the H.S.
Probably a slip, but I wanted to clarify that it was Jesus who was conceived by a miraculous act of he Holy Spirit. Mary was immaculately conceived, meaning that her conception occurred by the normal, natural process, but that God did a special act at the moment of her conception to make her immaculate and remove from her all stain of original sin. Even then she could still sin, had she chosen to (precisely as the originally sinless, pre-Fall Eve did). But she chose, by God's grace to never sin (whereas Jesus could not possibly sin, which is what is called impeccability).
I suspect the answer is that a fertilized egg was placed in Marys womb. Otherwise, wouldn't Mary be partly divine?
However the miracle occurred with regard to Jesus' conception (I believe orthodox theologians and the Church would say that the Holy Spirit miraculously fertilized one of her eggs, so that she could be truly the Mother of God the Son), has no bearing with regard to Mary's status as a creature. She was a creature and can only be that, because any created thing has a beginning in time and origin from God, whereas God has no beginning and is uncreated; pure existence and Being. What is created can never somehow cease to be created and transform into an uncreated Being (i.e., God). There is an essential difference that can never be modified.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
GoodSoil
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 90 |
| First Name: | GoodSoil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Evangelical, charismatic/non-denominational |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 11:02 pm |
|
Probably a slip, but I wanted to clarify that it was Jesus who was conceived by a miraculous act of he Holy Spirit. Mary was immaculately conceived, meaning that her conception occurred by the normal, natural process, but that God did a special act at the moment of her conception to make her immaculate and remove from her all stain of original sin.
I read somewhere that although St.s Joachim and Anna had tried for years to have a baby the usual way, that Mary was concieved while he was away tending the sheep. Where are the Mary legends (I say legends not to cast dispersion on them, just as a genre of literature) located? Catholics seem to know things about Mary from somewhere other than the Bible but they aren't in the Catechism. Where does one learn these things about Mary?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 01:28 am |
|
GoodSoil wrote: Where does one learn these things about Mary?
Many of us (cradle Catholics) were taught by nuns, or raised by parents who were taught by nuns, so many of the stories we learned ultimately came from them. The early Fathers wrote much about Mary, recording the oral Tradition handed down by the apostles.
Many of the legends of Mary come from the Protoevangelium of James, also known as the Infancy Gospel, which is an apocryphal book probably written early in the second century (around 125 AD) from the oral Traditions of the Church. This book, for example, tells us the names of Mary's parents, of her dedication as a temple virgin, and her betrothal to Joseph. It tells us that Joseph was a widower chosen by God and committed to preserving Mary's purity. It's not a long book, and it helps us to understand many things about our Blessed Mother.
This is not inspired Scripture. Like the writings of the Fathers, it tells us what the early Christians understood and believed, and is valuable for study. It helps to "fill in the gaps" in those matters that are not covered in scripture, such as the life of Mary, her marriage to Joseph, and the manner of Jesus' birth.
Since it is not inspired, we are free to accept or reject it except in those areas where the Church hs made dogmatic and doctrinal statements, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, or in those areas which are also present in Scripture.
|
|
|
GoodSoil
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 90 |
| First Name: | GoodSoil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Evangelical, charismatic/non-denominational |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 03:06 pm |
|
| Thanks Rick!
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 674 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 11:10 pm |
|
The ProtoEvangelium of St. James the Apostle is not a 'legands' according to the Eastern Catholic Church. It is not part of the New Testament, as it is not about Jesus and as Rick said it is not considered inspired by the Holy Spirit, but is the life of Mary and Joseph. It is very much a part of tradition within the Church.
Another part of this is important, because when it is read with the Mishnah of the Jews it teaches/brings understanding of the "mishnaic teachings on the process by which girls become women and how they are passed from fathers to husbands provide intriguing parallels. Moreover, the concern in each of the texts is for the preservation and assurance of virginity. The implication for this cultural connection is that the assertion of Mary's postpartum virginity (the real innovation of the Protoevangelium of James) may have come from within a Jewish community (albeit a Christian one)."
Horner, Timothy J.
Jewish Aspects of the Protoevangelium of James
Journal of Early Christian Studies - Volume 12, Number 3, Fall 2004, pp. 313-335
"Mishnah," the derivative of the verb "shanah," means therefore: (1) "instruction," the teaching and learning of the tradition, the word being used in this sense in Ab. iii. 7, 8; and (2) in a concrete sense, the content of that instruction, the traditional doctrine as it was developed down to the beginning of the third century of the common era. "Mishnah" is frequently used, therefore, to designate the law which was transmitted orally, in contrast to "Miḳra," the law which is written and read...
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=660&letter=M
Last edited on Fri Oct 10th, 2008 11:27 pm by Pani Rose
|
|
|
GoodSoil
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 90 |
| First Name: | GoodSoil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Evangelical, charismatic/non-denominational |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 11:26 pm |
|
| Sure. As I was trying to say above, I meant "legend" as in a story which is passed down, a type of story, not to mean that I think it isn't true. A legend can be true or not. I was not saying it isn't true.
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 674 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 11:29 pm |
|
Oh that is fine, I should have clarified I was responding to Rick's statement.
Sorry for giving any impression I was upset, just clarifing for understanding.
|
|
|
ChildofGod
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 192 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Evangelical Christian |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 12:21 am |
|
I read the Protoevangelium of James some time ago. I thought it read very much like a fairy tale, and wasn't sure of its reliability. Of course, certain parts of the Bible read like a fairy tale too (Jonah and the whale, Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt) so that isn't necessarily a litmus test. How long has this writing been part of Church tradition? IOW, even though it is believed to have been written early on, when was the actual document found? Or was it circulated early on within the churches as a trustworthy, reliable account of Mary?
I have some misgivings about this account, but I am willing to believe in its authenticity if history can prove such a thing. As regards historical accuracy and believability, within what range can the Protoevangelium be categorized? Would Christian/Catholic historians say that it is a trustworthy rendition of historical fact?
I look forward to your responses as always.
Darlene
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 674 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 02:46 am |
|
One thing I have learned is things are not always in black and white - sorry for the pun.
For instance, the Eastern Church uses to teach of Mary's Virginity. When one realizes that is speaking of the buiding of the temple then it makes sence.
Cyril of Alexandria-
"The Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).
Ezekiel
Chapter 44 1 Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, facing the east; but it was closed. 2 He said to me: This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed. 3 Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the LORD. He must enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and leave by the same way.
An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.
According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).
To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.
However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).
According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.
The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity. http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 674 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 03:07 am |
|
Also, here is some info from the Hahn's site.
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/%7Evgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/overview.html
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/%7Evgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/m.html http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/%7Evgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 04:50 am |
|
Pani Rose wrote: Oh that is fine, I should have clarified I was responding to Rick's statement.
Sorry for giving any impression I was upset, just clarifing for understanding.
For the record, I was also not saying that the Protoevengelium is legend, but that many of the stories contained within have been embellished over the centuries and taken on the status of what I would consider legend. One example would be the statement from the middle ages that both Mary and Jesus were blonde and European in appearance.
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 674 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 12:40 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote: Pani Rose wrote: Oh that is fine, I should have clarified I was responding to Rick's statement.
Sorry for giving any impression I was upset, just clarifing for understanding.
For the record, I was also not saying that the Protoevengelium is legend, but that many of the stories contained within have been embellished over the centuries and taken on the status of what I would consider legend. One example would be the statement from the middle ages that both Mary and Jesus were blonde and European in appearance.
 I always wondered where that came from.
|
|
|
Current time is 02:34 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
