This was what a person was saying to me. Claiming that He could not be born of Mary’s egg because then he would have defaults. Now obviously this person was not familiar with the immaculate conception and the teachings of the CC on Mary. Also the person brought up that Jesus always refered to Mary as “Women” instead of Mother or Mom. Where in the bible is there good teaching of Mary being the true Mother of Jesus?
If Mary was only a surrogate mother than Jesus was not true man, and God has set out to deceive us.
This person must not be familiar with scripture either when Mary’s sister said words to the effect of why the mother of my Lord should come to her.
This person also doesn’t know that the first humans had preternatural gifts in their lives. So if it was a gift given by God then He certainly could do it again.
The word “woman” used in the 2nd chapter of the Gospel of John is the same word used in Genesis for Eve. I have been told it was also a standard saying of a man to a woman at that period of history of the Jews. So the word describes much of what was going on at that time and the connection of Old and New Testaments. This is the beauty of how scripture provides more than one communication.
There isn’t any question about Mary being the mother of Jesus and anyone who suggests that there is, is just ignorant or being deliberately obtuse.
The question, which was resolved at the Council of Ephesus, was whether Jesus’ Humanity could be separated from His Divinity. The Council determined that His natures could not be taken separately, and so it was truthful to call Mary :God-bearer" or “Mother of God.”
If you are going to try to “prove” this from Scripture you are looking for Luke 1:31 - the angel told the Virgin she would “conceive” which presumes that there is an egg to be fertilized.
You might want to read Luke chapter 1 again in it’s entirety for the full context of the birth narrative of Jesus (and I think John the Baptist too) cause in it, it tells that Elizabeth, who spoke those words to her is her cousin. I’d recommend reading in the Douay-Rheims Bible because it is the only translation that I know of which properly translates the word in question to “cousin”.
“You will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son” said the Angel to Mary in Luke’s gospel.
Calling someone Woman, back then, was a term of deep respect.
So? He was born with fallen humanity, and this is essential to the conception of salvation. God took on the fallen nature of man and healed it within Himself. The quote in my signature is from Tertullian, and he is discussing this very issue.
The famous Alexander,(8) too, instigated by his love of disputation in the true fashion of heretical temper, has made himself conspicuous against us; he will have us say that Christ put on flesh of an earthly origin,(9) in order that He might in His own person abolish sinful flesh.(10) Now, even if we did assert this as our opinion, we should be able to defend it in such a way as completely to avoid the extravagant folly which he ascribes to us in making us suppose that the very flesh of Christ was in Himself abolished as being sinful; because we mention our belief (in public),(11) that it is sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven; and we further declare that it will come again from thence in all the pomp(12) of the Father’s glory: it is therefore just as impossible for us to say that it is abolished, as it is for us to maintain that it is sinful, and so made void, since in it there has been no fault. We maintain, moreover, that what has been abolished in Christ is not carnem peccati, “sinful flesh,” but peccatum carnis, “sin in the flesh,”–not the material thing, but its condition;(13) not the substance, but its flaw;(14) and (this we aver) on the authority of the apostle, who says, “He abolished sin in the flesh.”(15) Now in another sentence he says that Christ was “in the likeness of sinful flesh,”(16)not, however, as if He had taken on Him “the likeness of the flesh,” in the sense of a semblance of body instead of its reality; but he means us to understand likeness to the flesh which sinned,(17) because the flesh of Christ, which committed no sin itself, resembled that which had sinned,–resembled it in its nature, but not in the corruption it received from Adam; whence we also affirm that there was in Christ the same flesh as that whose nature in man is sinful. In the flesh, therefore, we say that sin has been abolished, because in Christ that same flesh is maintained without sin, which in than was not maintained without sin. Now, it would not contribute to the purpose of Christ’s abolishing sin in the flesh, if He did not abolish it in that flesh in which was the nature of sin, nor (would it conduce) to His glory. For surely it would have been no strange thing if He had removed the stain of sin in some better flesh, and one which should possess a different, even a sinless, nature! Then, you say, if He took our flesh, Christ’s was a sinful one. Do not, however, fetter with mystery a sense which is quite intelligible. For in putting on our flesh, He made it His own; in making it His own, He made it sinless. A word of caution, however, must be addressed to all who refuse to believe that our flesh was in Christ on the ground that it came not of the seed of a human father,(1) let them remember that Adam himself received this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father. As earth was converted into this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father, so also was it quite possible for the Son of God to take to Himself’ the substance of the selfsame flesh, without a human father’s agency.(3)
Notice a couple things in this quote. First, Jesus assumed the fallen human nature and it is in this way that the fallen nature of man was healed. Second, it is the nearness of God that saves human nature from sin. Union of the natures in the Incarnation and throughout the life of Christ is what saves man. There is a communication of the properties of the natures of Christ through the life of Christ. The end result is the deification and healing of the human nature.
I must disagree. Your quote from Tertullian is interesting, but I disagree on his and your conclusions about the mechanism of our justification and redemption. Jesus was born perfect, lived perfect, and died on the cross as a sacrifice. On the cross, the wrath of God, which should have been reserved for each of us, was poured out on Christ. On the cross, he bore all our sins. If he had been tainted by sin, then he could not be the perfect substitute sacrifice for the sins of all people, since he would have his own sins to account for. Jesus had to be perfect in his flesh/humanity in order that he could serve as the perfect sacrifice, so that the Holy wrath of God the Father could be satisfied.
If it is as you say, that “it is the nearness of God that saves human nature from sin… Union of the natures in the Incarnation and throughout the life of Christ is what saves man”, then the CROSS would have been completely unnecessary! Why would the Father have allowed Jesus to experience such pointless suffering if it wasn’t absolutely necessary for our salvation?
Your last point that the end result is the deification and healing of the human nature sounds off, since it is not the goal of God that we humans should be “deified” or become god/God. We become adopted sons and co-heirs with Jesus, but we do not become God. Granted this may just be a semantics thing, and I may just be misreading you on this point.
To bring this discussion back the main topic, whether Mary was only a surrogate or not,I think it’s a relevant question. Granted, I am a protestant, and do not believe in the immaculate conception (of Mary). Though I can understand the reason why this is important. If Mary is indeed the biological mother of Jesus, then she would have transferred the sinful nature of the flesh to Jesus, had she not been “immaculate”.
But since Mary identifies Jesus as “her savior,” it stands to reason that she needs a savior, and is actually not immaculate. If that is the case, then the case can be made that Jesus was not genetically related to Mary, but the result of a fully conceived zygote simply implanted by the holy spirit, without Mary’s eggs involved at all. This was meet the requirement of Jesus perfection, and eligibility as a perfect/flawless sacrifice.
I don’t think that the possibility of no human egg/sperm involvement in the incarnation of Christ disqualifies him as as fully man. Since Adam was created without the aid of egg/sperm, but formed from the dust. In fact, Jesus is described as the “last adam” by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:45. This characterization of Jesus as an “Adam” suggests that his physical body was created directly by God without human egg/sperm, just as the first adam was.
after I posted this, I found (presumably) more accurate teaching on the immaculate conception:
Another misconception people have is that Mary’s Immaculate Conception was necessary to ensure that Original Sin would not be passed on to Christ. This has never been a part of the teaching on the Immaculate Conception; rather, the Immaculate Conception represents Christ’s saving grace operating in Mary in anticipation of His redemption of man and in God’s foreknowledge of Mary’s acceptance of His Will for her.
In other words, the Immaculate Conception was not a precondition for Christ’s act of redemption but the result of it. It is the concrete expression of God’s love for Mary, who gave herself fully, completely, and without hesitation to His service.
Seems like the bit about transferring original sin was never part of the teaching on immaculate conception. But if that is the case, this strengthens the argument for Mary being a surrogate. If the immaculate conception was not a precondition for Christ’s act of redemption but a result of it, then it would support that Christ was not tainted by any sinful human nature, Joseph or Mary. This seems sort of like the chicken or the egg question, except the teaching on this one is clear that redemption came first, and was sorta retroactively applied to Mary. Maybe
Jesus would have been sinless regardless if Mary was immaculately conceived or not. Catholics believe she was sinless because it would be proper as her role as the New Ark and the Theotokos(God-bearer). Even if Mary was sinful, Jesus would not have been any less sinless or God than he already was.
Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary,
Ah, thanks for the clarification. That tracks with the other information I found in my edit. I should go to bed.
the word “woman” was a term used to show proper respect for a female of high standing during biblical times. So, it was not uncommon for an adult male to refer to his mother as “woman”.
It is not the same as today where addressing a female as “woman” could be seen as a being sexist or as a denoting lesser standing. At the time it was commonly used to indicate respect and who better to respect than your mother?
This is the Nestorian Heresy all over again.
Without the sure teaching of the Church through the Bishops, this is what happens. Chaos.
Exactly what attracted me to the Church. Every protestant church I attended had very different takes on everything, much of it nonsensical. In the end people have to admit they are not smart enough to understand scripture and tradition on their own and leave that to the people with the most study and expertise, the Magisterium.
Serrogate is the wrong term. In serrogate motherhood, the serrogate mother gives up the baby at birth to the person(s) who made the arrangement with her. Even though it’s her egg, it is NOT going to be her baby. She will be the biological mother of that child, but won’t be the mother who raises that child. She gives up all rights to the child.
Since the blessed Mother agreed to have the HS descend upon her, and 9 months later she gave birth to Jesus, Mary’s spouse in this case, is the HS, 3rd person of the Trinity. For ALL eternity then, Mary is the Mother of Jesus, the incarnate Word, 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity, Son of God, Son of Mary. Mary is His mother for all eternity.
This recent discussion might be helpful:
Good one, steve b!! So in using the term “serrogate”, they are actually proving themselves wrong. Gotta love the irony!
Fair enough, but my usage of “surrogate mother” was intended to mean a woman who is impregnated with a life, embryo, child, etc. that is not the result of her genetic material (eggs/ovum).
Common sense dictates that if God was going to implant His only Son into a mere mortal woman, then He would certainly utilize her egg as well. Of course, this is not scriptural, but why wouldn’t He? What would be the reason for not using a human egg if God is going to become human?
I would think verse 35 would be your key:
35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The images of the Holy Spirit “shall overshadow thee” certainly give the images of God procreating with Mary, as a husband would overshadow his wife (in the missionary position anyway), so they could conceive.