Did the classical theologians actually never thought the idea of a man being born without an earthly father to be a bit strange? I have never seen any writings about it. They must have written about that strange thing. Are we just to accept that Jesus had a really strange birth and that modern catholic medical doctors have to come up with strange medical conditions in order to explain the virgin birth? It’s just strange.
I can explain the virgin birth to you…“the Holy Spirit came upon her”.
Why would we need modern catholic doctors to come up with a strange medical condition? St. Luke was a physician and he was the one who wrote more extensively about our Lady and the birth of Christ.
Peace and Love.
The fact that it is strange is probably the most important aspect of it.
Frankly, one does not have to know He was born of a virgin, in order to receive His teachings. But like the miracles Jesus did, they proved He had authority on earth.
If Jesus were “just a nice guy” who had all the answers, would He have gotten the attention He did, or would His story have been handed down to billions, over the generations? These things require the supernatural connection in order to happen, would be my guess.
From what I’ve read, the tradition of Jesus having a virgin birth may not have been circulating in the first several decades…which is why Paul, the earliest Christian writer, did not mention it in any of his letters and it’s not mentioned in two of the four gospels or any other early sources (and this would be a very important point to mention!)
I don’t think it was officially accepted by the church until the turn of the second century?
But also, the idea of a virgin or a miraculous birth wasn’t a new one. They were a common component in Buddhism and Hinduism and other religions…other Gods or half-Gods throughout the centuries before Jesus were thought to come from either virgin or otherwise miraculous births.
So it seems this sort of birth was already embraced and accepted and would not seem terribly odd by the time Jesus was born. If you were considered divine, you were pretty much expected to have some kind of out-of-the-ordinary entrance into the mortal world.
It is more than “strange.” It is a miracle, just as is the fact that He rose from the dead.
Could you please link to the evidence for these comments.
If you are divine then by necessity of that definition your entrance into the material world must be extra-ordinary.
Actually, other “divine” entries into the world were not the same - the god / “half-god” entered the world as a god. Jesus was and is the only one who is fully a human being, who is God. So when Thomas said to Jesus, “my Lord and my God” he was talking to a human just like you are a human. And the mystery is, he was literally talking to the One God when addressing that one Human.
Also, writings of the New Testament and early Church did not cite things that were universally accepted and understood, but mainly things that were new understandings that needed propagation. In the ensuing years, as various questions came about from people who did not have the common understanding, then the common understanding was put on paper. This is the case with Mary, with the explanation of the Trinity, with the detailed explanation of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and of Transubstantiation, etc. Traditions are not put onto paper for official propagation unless there is a lack of that common understanding somewhere that needs to be rectified. I do not write a detailed explanation of the phrase “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” to a county of farmers, but if my friend from Ukraine moved into the county, I would take pains to explain the doctrine of complainers as found in that phrase, yet that phrase was not invented in this current moment just because I now explain it to my friend.
what exactly do you mean?
Matthew 1:23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
No-one had to come up with anything, its in the Bible. The birth of Christ has always been a new beginning for mankind. Just as the Spirit moved over the waters in Genesis to bring light to His new creation, the Spirit moved over Mary to form He, who would be the Light of the World. The Divine Incarnation of the Word of God. “God with us”
“the Holy Spirit came upon her”.
Am I the only person thinking too much?
Read this: telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/4767456/Science-of-the-Virgin-Birth.html
Yes, I think you are trying to rationalize God and put him in a “human” box along with this scientist. God created everything from nothing, he has the power to create the Son out of a human woman. Why could he not have supplied a y chromosome out of nothing when the Holy Spirit came upon her? Why does someone feel the need to have some scientific explanation for the birth of our Lord. It is the miracle of the birth of Christ.
No, yet the article becomes narrowed here, the very definition of miracle opposed to plausible needs synthesis. The miracle in question surpassed the scientific understanding, thats what makes it a miracle. It may also be that no laws of science are violated, so there would be no contradiction in this to begin with just incorrect human assumption.
miracle really requires a plausible explanation,
I don’t really accept such thinking!
Could anyone please quote Thomas Aquinas? What did he say?