Clauso Utero

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by John Gilmore, May 5, 2004.

  1. John Gilmore

    John Gilmore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was Jesus born in the normal way by passing through Mary's birth canal? Or, was Jesus born in a miraculous way by passing through Mary's intact abdomen? Please provide supporting evidence for your opinion from scripture and/or church fathers.
     
  2. John Gilmore

    John Gilmore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps I should have said "supernatural way" rather than "miraculous way". The birth of every child is a miracle whether via the birth canal or through the belly via a c-section. C-sections have become a normal way to give birth.

    Did Jesus, true God and true man, through the communication of the attributes of the divine nature, pass through Mary's abdomen wall in a supernatural manner? Or, did His birth occur in a natural way via Mary's birth canal?
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    My only thought would be that it seems natural from the fact that Jesus was the first born son who "opened the womb" (Luke 2v23).

    Never thought about the issue though.
     
  4. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would say it was a natural birth according to Luke 2:6,7.

    "And so it was that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."

    (Bold added for emphasis)

    BTW, these verses also tell us that Mary had more children with Joseph. The Bible does not say she brought forth her ONLY son, but her FIRST-BORN son.

    ┬žue
     
  5. John Gilmore

    John Gilmore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christ4Kildare,

    (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)Luke 2:23

    Excellent verse! However, those who argue for Clauso Utero (Closed Womb) might reply that Luke is merely explaining why Jesus, although sinless, underwent the rite of purification required of all Jewish males.

    I Am Blessed 16,

    That verse does seem to imply that Mary was involved in the delivery of Jesus in a meaningful way.

    Most people who believe in the closed womb also believe in perpetuality virginity (Ezekiel 44:2). However, some people say that vaginal delivery would technically violate Mary's virginity contrary to scripture but believe that Mary could have other children later.
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Good points, however, being a Biblical literalist the natural interpretation of the Luke passage would be that Jesus did indeed open the womb, therefore cancelling out Clauso Utero.

    As I said, I have never worked through the issue, but see no need for a supernatural explanation for the actual delivery.

    I don't accept that Ezekiel 44v2 can be used in the context of Jesus' physical birth. There is no indication that it should be used that way.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    He was born naturally ... Why is this a question??? Babies aren't born by passing through their mother's unopen abdomen.
     
  8. Debby in Philly

    Debby in Philly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now I've heard everything. Where did this absurd notion come from?
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Clauso Utero is almost mandatory for pereptual virginity claims. It is based on the claim that Mary was a virgn not only because she never had intercourse, but because she perpetually gave all physical evidence of virgnity.

    At least thats how I understand it.
     
  10. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Huh? The Birth of Jesus and Mary's virginity, be it up to Jesus' birth, or in perpetuity, are two separate things. Asserting Mary's virginity (perpetual or otherwise) does not require anything of the method of Jesus' birth.

    There's nothing to suggest anything other than a vaginal birth in Jesus' case.
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Of course John, I agree. Check out Ezekiel 44v2 to see where they supposedly get the view.

    This is a case of taking scripture out of context to support a man made doctrine.
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, like that's never happenned before [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  13. John Gilmore

    John Gilmore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christ4Kildare,

    Good points, however, being a Biblical literalist the natural interpretation of the Luke passage would be that Jesus did indeed open the womb, therefore cancelling out Clauso Utero.

    A literalist might interpret Isiah 7:14 and Matt. 1:23 as requiring that Mary maintain physical evidence of virginity at least until after she was delivered.

    I don't accept that Ezekiel 44v2 can be used in the context of Jesus' physical birth. There is no indication that it should be used that way.

    I agree that Ezekiel 44:2 is rather weak. But it seems to be the proof text for those who favor Clauso Utero.

    Pastor Larry,

    Jesus was not conceived naturally. Should we expect Him to be born naturally? Perhaps. Natural childbirth is a powerful symbol of Christ becoming our brother and experiencing birth as most men do. But, since all men are not vaginally delivered, I would say that it would not be necessary for Christ to be born that way.
     
  14. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    John Gilmore:
    Now all these discussions are bringing back to mind a question we tossed around in class during my Bible school days in another order of Baptist.

    The question: how did Jesus get nourishment while in Mary's womb ? Did he get the nourishment the normal way, thru Mary's blood via the placenta ? Was he at all connected to Mary in that way ?
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why wouldn't you??? I am pretty sure that C-sections were frequent occurrences back then. It is hard to imagine any other kind of birth.

    I would say it is not necessary to be vaginally birthed to be human. But it is of no theological significance and most certainly was "without the flesh opening."

    And yes, Jesus got nourishment the normal human way in the womb. He was in fact a complete human being.
     
  16. John Gilmore

    John Gilmore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now all these discussions are bringing back to mind a question we tossed around in class during my Bible school days in another order of Baptist.

    The question: how did Jesus get nourishment while in Mary's womb ? Did he get the nourishment the normal way, thru Mary's blood via the placenta ? Was he at all connected to Mary in that way ?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Christ, true God from eternity, was made true man of a woman in the incarnation. He received nourishment in the womb from His mother just as every other man receives nourishment in the womb.

    Just as Christ is a real man, Mary is a real mother. Clauso Utero takes away part of real motherhood from Mary. She is denied the pain of childbirth that every real mother experiences (Gen. 3:16).
     
  17. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello, John Gilmore! I'm in Cleveland, about 30 miles above you.

    Having never been a part of the RCC, or knowing much about it until lately, I have to admit that this is a very strange topic to me. Much like the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity, I just don't get it.

    Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, not through the 'normal' means of man and woman. But, other than that, His humanity was just as yours and mine.

    This reminds me of a quote that I read. Benny Hinn was quoted as saying that the Holy Spirit had revealed to him that woman originally were to have given birth through their left (or was it right) side, and not vaginally. He said that vaginal delivery was the outcome of Eve's disobedience. It took me almost ten minutes to stop laughing over that one.

    I guess that's why this topic reminded me of the qoute. Ya think?

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  18. John Gilmore

    John Gilmore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trotter,

    I think that RCs and others tend to concentrate on the divinity of Christ; whereas Baptists and others tend toward the humanity of Christ. That's why you might think it strange that Christ would use His divine nature to pass through Mary's abdomen and a RC might think it strange that Jesus would pass through a human plumbing system to be born.
     
  19. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I disagree John, that "Baptists and others tend toward the humanity of Christ."

    I think most of see Christ as 100% divine and 100% human. When he came to earth He took on "the form of a servant" and I just don't see any justification for trying to reason why that form did not include a natural virginal birth.

    I understand the seeming theological significance of this to those who prefer a mystical slant to their faith. Clauso Utero is a man-made doctrine which I think further separates us from our Saviour and gives the indication that we are not worthy to approach Him on our own.
     
  20. Melanie

    Melanie
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,779
    Likes Received:
    5
    C sections were not COMMON or even an option except in the case where the mother had died. I am pretty sure the term caesarian section comes from a Roman Emperor but some one could come up with the definition/explanation.

    Here is another instance of trying to fathom a miracle which is so called because of Divine intervention. Mary conceived of the Holy Ghost and went to visit Elizabeth in Judea.

    My understanding of virginity lays in the concept of the female or male of the species not being in physical union with the other.

    Bri-G
     

Share This Page

Loading...