Replies

FK: "Since Mary complied with the law it is reasonable to infer that the birth was of a normal type."

Only if you have no further information. But in this case, we *do* have further information. Therefore, "what is reasonable to infer given the absence of further information" is irrelevant.

Well, "further information" can take any form whatsoever, including graffiti on the overpass, so the simple existence of "further information" is non sequitur. I would only be interested in "further information" that had any authority, or at least some credibility. Since there is ZERO further information with any authority, my statement stands according to Sola Scriptura. Of course I have all of my theologians lined up with what I would consider credible views that the birth of Jesus was of a normal type. You have yours in opposition. That is fine, and we disagree on whether yours are authoritative. However, at least ONE Church Father took the Sola Scriptura approach to this issue. That was St. Ignatius and the following quote is courtesy of Xzins in his 820 :

"... But as for me, I do not place my hopes in one who died for me in appearance, but in reality. For that which is false is quite abhorrent to the truth. Mary then did truly conceive a body which had God inhabiting it. And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own. He who forms all men in the womb, was Himself really in the womb, and made for Himself a body of the seed of the Virgin, but without any intercourse of man. He was carried in the womb, even as we are, for the usual period of time; and was really born, as we also are; and was in reality nourished with milk, and partook of common meat and drink, even as we do. ..."

So, even among YOUR sources for further information you have to make decisions as to what to accept and what to reject. The Magisterium takes a vote, and whatever is popular at the time wins. For me, I'll just stick with scripture.