Clauso Utero

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.

 

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.

§ue

 

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.

 

He was born naturally ... Why is this a question??? Babies aren't born by passing through their mother's unopen abdomen.

 

Now I've heard everything. Where did this absurd notion come from?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Oh, like that's never happenned before

 

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 ?

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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