Is There A Reason Why Jesus Was Male?

[MIKolbe]

From reading everything, it seems like Jesus "was male" because it's true.

 

And oddly, I don't find that circular; but rather simple. 

 

 

[KnightofChrist]

Indeed!

[Kia ora]

First of all, thanks for continuing the discussion. I feel it's still interesting. If you don't, I totally understand. Considering it's almost New Years and you probably have better things to do.

 

 

Because God would be both the Father and the daughter

 

 

And this is more contradictory than God being both the Father and the Son?

 

 

God would be a He-She, a contradiction

 

But we've established that God is not a He or a She since God doesn't have a gender. Only God's human incarnation would have a gender, which would be female and there's no more contradiction there than already exists with a God that has no gender having a Son that does (in his human nature).

 

 

You'll have to ask a Eastern Rite Catholic/Christian about the hymn. Begotten is not the same as born, again the Son was not born of the Father, He has always existed. To put it in simple terms it means God the Father is head of the Trinity.

 

I disagree, I think born means exactly the same thing as begotten. Excuse the Greek, I hate it when people throw Greek or Latin at me because it rarely helps in discussions and the people who throw them out don't seem to know them too well anyway, but I think it's the only way to be completely honest and open. Otherwise you have no idea if I'm bsing or not. Here's the relevant bit from the Chalcedonian Creed:

 

πρὸ αἰώνων μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν τὸν αὐτὸν δἰ ἡμᾶς καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου τῆς θεοτόκου κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα

 

Born/begotten (γεννηθέντα) from eternity from the Father according to divine nature, in our latter days, the same Jesus for us and for our salvation, [insert here understood γεννηθέντα from before] from Mary the Virgin the Theotokos according to human nature.

 

The same word γεννηθέντα is shared between both the Father and Mary, since Greek doesn't have two words for begetting and giving birth. If the Father is begetting Jesus, then so is Mary. If Mary is giving birth to Jesus, then so is the Father. 

If you don't believe me, Matthew 1:20 where the Annunciation takes place uses the same word (in different conjugation, but same word) for that-which-is-born/begotten in Mary's womb. In Luke 1:35 as well:

καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ· πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σὲ καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι· διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς θεοῦ.

And the angel in response said to her: the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the might of the Highest One will throw its shade over you: because of this, the child also that is born/begotten will be called holy, Son of God.

 

And the Nicene Creed:

 

φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα,

Light from Light,  true God from true God, born/begotten and not made.

 

There's a thread in Ask a Scholar that says the same thing.

 

About two years ago I was confused about this whole begotten business, so I asked about it on another Catholic forum. That's why I was careful to say before that the Second Person was being eternally born or eternally begotten.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Kia ora

[Slappo]

There are so many things wrong with thinking that the father is the primary source of creation in the act of procreation, I don't even know where to begin.  

 

This thread is so dumb. 

 

Neither father or mother are the primary souce of creation in the act of procreation. Neither of them are creating the human soul... they are co-creators. God is the primary source of creation in the act of procreation. No one has said otherwise in this thread.

[Selah]

And this is more contradictory than God being both the Father and the Son?

 

 

It is not a contradiction, because the Persons are distinct, yet consubstansial. God the Father is not God the Son, neither is God the Son, God the Father. However, both God the Father and God the Son is God. It may not seem like much, but there is a distinction.

[Basilisa Marie]

Neither father or mother are the primary source of creation in the act of procreation. Neither of them are creating the human soul... they are co-creators. God is the primary source of creation in the act of procreation. No one has said otherwise in this thread.

 

Right, I agree, but from the article KoC posted: 

 

 

 

Both mother and father are active agents of conception (contrary to what Aristotle thought). But the father, being male, initiates procreation; he enters and impregnates the woman, while the woman is entered and impregnated. There is an initiatory activity by the man and a receptive activity by the woman. Furthermore, modern biology tells us that the father determines the gender of the offspring (as Aristotle held, though for a different reason).

Thus, while father and mother are both parents of their offspring and both necessary for procreation, the father has a certain priority as the "source" or "principle" of procreation. (This "priority as source" is complemented by the mother's priority as first nurturer, due to her procreating within herself and carrying the child within herself for nine months.)

 

I took the bolded to mean that the father is thought to be the primary source of creation, in his priority...and that a mother complements a man's role through her role.  I also take issue with the idea that a woman's role in procreation is only passive.  Women sometimes initiate procreation, even against a man's will.  It seemed to me that the section I quote doesn't account for that.  It also seems to imply that a woman's role in creation is supplementary, not an equal co-creator with her husband.  And because the article is trying to explain why the image of a Father is better for God, in his role as creator of all, it inherently implies that a father is more of a creator than a mother.  And for what it's worth, modern biology has created a human being from two egg cells, but not two sperm cells.  To me that seems like a woman's biological tissue is more active than a man's in the procreative process, even if male gametes determine gender.   But I'm not arguing that a woman is more active in the process than a man.  I agree with what you said, Slappo, but I don't think the article KoC posted agrees with you.  

[KnightofChrist]

From the article affirming both male and female are co-creators in procreation.

To be sure, both father and mother are parents of their offspring and in that sense both are causes of their offspring's coming-to-be. But they are so in different ways.

Both mother and father are active agents of conception.

Even if the man is forced to have intercourse by the woman he still enters into her and she still receives him. If she is impregnated by the man the sperm still enters into the egg and the egg receives the sperm. If I recall correctly the unnatural experiment using two eggs to create a fertilized one still used a sperm. They took DNA or something of the sort from the sperm and took DNA or again something of the sort from one of the eggs injected into the sperm and fertilized the other egg with the modified sperm. Perhaps though it was a different experiment. Either way it is unnatural and a bad example to use. Edited December 29, 2012 by KnightofChrist