The Necessity of Special Creation

[Joe]

Christ offered himself as a sacrifice "without blemish," to God 1 Pet. 1

Mary’s egg would have contained genetic defects with prosperity for disease, Innheriting genetic defects through Mary's DNA would blemish him.

Yet Christs body did not decay after his death.


Since Jesus is the second Adam, this likely means both were created from dust-

1. Adam and Jesus both got hungry, thirsty, and tired
2. Adam (prior to the fall) and Jesus both appear to have never gotten sick (caught a cold, the flu, cancer etc..)

Imo, Jesus is not the biological son of Mary.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Joe: Mary’s egg would have contained genetic defects with prosperity for disease, Innheriting genetic defects through Mary's DNA would blemish him.

HP: I would disagree with you here. Reading Isaiah I would conclude that his body was literally wracked with pain and anguish from carrying our sorrows, and bearing our grief. Who does not realize that many temptations come through sickness and disease, even those often inherited? He was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. Did he not have an attending physician with him, the apostle Luke? I cannot help but believe that Luke’s services were needed on more than one occasion, but I realize that is speculation on my part.

Isa 53:4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth:

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Isaiah 53 is taliking about the last hours of Christ's life, not all His years.

 

[Joe]

HP: I would disagree with you here. Reading Isaiah I would conclude that his body was literally wracked with pain and anguish from carrying our sorrows, and bearing our grief. Who does not realize that many temptations come through sickness and disease, even those often inherited? He was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. Did he not have an attending physician with him, the apostle Luke? I cannot help but believe that Luke’s services were needed on more than one occasion, but I realize that is speculation on my part.

Isa 53:4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth:

I agree with all that you have offered except it doesn't contradict what I posted. They go hand in hand. He had a fleshly body which was injured, he experienced pain, and he bled during his crucifixion.
On another note, did you know older and newer bible versions differ upon whether the nails pounded into his hands actually broke the bones? I remember looking this up, so it is true. The bones in his hands never broke.

This doesn't change the fact his body was inherintly different, it wasn't fully human in the way our world would define that. It never decayed upon death.

 

[donnA]

Yes - Luke is the traditionally accepted genealogy of Mary. It doesn't mention the name of Mary because it was not through the mother that the lineage was described. It was always through the men.

Well this is certainly funny, since Jesus' lineage had to come through Mary as you have said, now it's through Joseph.
Your argument about lineage and bloodlines just flew out the window.

Is that so hard for God?

Is it so hard for God to create from nothing?

 

[DHK]

Before this may be closed, I want to point out Hebrews 10: 5

Ζωμα δε κατηρτισω μοι

A Body has thou prepared for me.

We must remember that Jesus was talking about His own body, and that Body cannot be a sperm or an ovum but the flesh.

He was still conscious and understood what He was going to take. If He became a sperm and was supposed to be fertilized with the egg of Mary, then He must have lost the brain, but should have remained as a sperm!

This implies Jesus started from the perfect Human Embryo as well. ( As emphasized by SFIC)

Why not take the Bible as a premise instead of a scientific statement which the Bible doesn't speak of. That is what SFIC did.
The Bible says: "that which was in her was conceived of the Holy Ghost," obviously referring to the ovum, which is "that" which is conceived or "fathered" as it is put in other translations.

"A body thou hast prepard for me"
--Correct, by the conception of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is able to take that ovum and from it prepare a body.
A body; flesh comes from the ovum and sperm. You read too much into this. When you read embryo, SFIC said NO. It must be fetus. And thus argued that whatever the Holy Spirit conceived must have already been two months old. He used as a premise (not the Bible), but a "scientific fact" that I gave him, when I told him that all the organs of the body clearly formed by the age of eight weeks. At that time it is called a fetus. Thus when the embyo has all its organs, and SFIC's logic determines that it is a body, he built a theology around that saying that Mary was only pregnant for seven months. For God "prepared a body." His premise is entirely based on my knowledge of science that an embryo has all of its organs by eight weeks. What if I am wrong in my facts? Then SFIC has to change his theology all over again. And believe me, we argued about how long Mary was pregnant for some time. (What a waste of time). It was all based on a wrong premise, because the premise was not Biblical.

You are doing the same thing. You are concentrating on an embryo. So if he started as an embryo, when did he start as an embryo. Just after fertilization, or just before two months right before it becomes a fetus? For two months it remains an embryo. Your not making much sense either. It is much simpler to believe what the Bible says, and beleive that Christ was born of a virgin, conceived of the Holy Spirit. Why is that so hard to believe?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

My wife just read to me this paragraph out of the article "When God Became Man" by Henry Morris Ph. D.

As glorious as the birth of Christ may have seemed, however, this was not His incarnation. He had already been "made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7) nine months earlier, when He created a body for Himself and took up His residence in Mary's womb. That was the time when "the Word was made flesh!"

It appears Dr. Morris agrees somewhat with Eliyahu's statement that Christ was 'born nine months prior to being laid in the manger in Bethlehem'.

The Incarnation was at that time when God prepared a body for Him and placed it supernaturally in that womb.

Again, it was a body placed in the womb, not a sperm cell, not an egg, not the result of a sperm cell and egg... but a body of flesh.

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

 

[standingfirminChrist]

The Bible says: "that which was in her was conceived of the Holy Ghost," obviously referring to the ovum

It is not obviously referring to an ovum. Look up the Greek, DHK. Again... ovum is not even a definition in the Greek.

 

[DHK]

Scripture states that Joseph WAS the father of Jesus, but did not impregnate Mary.

Please give a specific reference where it says that.
This is what the Scripture says:

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
--espoused means betrothed or engaged, but not married. If you are suggesting that Joseph was in any way the father, you are suggesting that Christ "was one born of fornication" an accusation made by the Pharisees.

John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Scripture does foretell and prophesy that Christ was to come from the lineage of Abraham just as the genealogies state and through Joseph, not Mary.

That is not true. In fact Joseph's lineage to David was cursed by Jeconiah. It isn't Abraham that is important here. It is David. It is important that the prophecy be fulfilled that Christ sit on the throne of David, which He will in the Millennial Kingdom. Read through the Gospels. Why did the blind man cry out:

Matthew 9:27 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.
--They knew the identity of Christ, and the prophecies concerning him.

If you are looking to Mary, you are looking in a place Scripture in no wise directs you to look, in spite of orthodoxy false traditions and teachings.

Mary's lineage is given in Luke; Joseph's in Matthew.

Where does it ever state that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus?
In many places. (Mat.1:20; Luke 1:34,35; Gal.4:4; Isa.7:14; Mat.1:23,25)

Matthew 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
--That is fairly strong proof right there.

Because the implantation was of the Holy Spirit does not necessitate it not being Joseph’s physical seed, does it? Exercise the loins of your mind. What would stop God from taking Joseph’s seed, or recreating it with matching DNA and implanting it in the womb of Mary.

It contradicts what God has said in His Word, and God doesn't do that. Nowhere in the Bible does God say that he took someone elses seed or DNA. If that would have been his plan the virgin birth would have been completely unnecessary. Why bother??
You cannot get around Mat.1:20 and Luke 1:35. It is these two verses that bother you most.
Christ was born of a virgin conceived of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
--The power of the truth in these verses is hard for you to refute.

That is no stretch for my mind and stops a lot of unfounded speculation concerning Mary and fulfills prophesy to a tee without lying to the Jews.

What is no stretch for your mind is a direct contradiction to Mat.1:20 and Luke 1:35 quoted above.

The whole problem surrounds the Augustinian notion of original sin (OS). Remove that false notion and the problems so many seem bent on removing with their theories become mute.

Remove Augustinianism and your still faced with a problem--the plain teaching of Scripture!

Jesus can be the man Scripture states He is with a nature Scripture says He has, and originate, as far as His human flesh is concerned, from exactly where Scripture states it did, from Abraham, through David to Joseph His earthly father.

And that is heresy--a denial of the virgin birth.

The false Augustinian dogma of original sin places sin in the physical constitution of man, when it really lies not in the propensities of the sensibilities, but rather in the will of man, the chooser of man.

Whatever your belief is on original sin is of no concern to me. But you seem to refuse to believe in the historic fudamental doctrine of the virgin birth, and that in and of itself is frightening.

 

[DHK]

It is not obviously referring to an ovum. Look up the Greek, DHK. Again... ovum is not even a definition in the Greek.

Yep, I know. This is the third time I have refuted this argument. Neither is: meiosis, mitosis, placenta, uterus, zygote, embryo, fetus, ovary, and a host of other biological words. What were you looking for in the Bible SFIC? Did you expect to find a Biology text with dictionary included. Is that part of the last three chapters of the Book of Jeconiah?

 

[DHK]

My wife just read to me this paragraph out of the article "When God Became Man" by Henry Morris Ph. D.

As glorious as the birth of Christ may have seemed, however, this was not His incarnation. He had already been "made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7) nine months earlier, when He created a body for Himself and took up His residence in Mary's womb. That was the time when "the Word was made flesh!"

It appears Dr. Morris agrees somewhat with Eliyahu's statement that Christ was 'born nine months prior to being laid in the manger in Bethlehem'.

The Incarnation was at that time when God prepared a body for Him and placed it supernaturally in that womb.

Again, it was a body placed in the womb, not a sperm cell, not an egg, not the result of a sperm cell and egg... but a body of flesh.

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

I have much of Morris's material and books, and I don't agree with every thing he writes.
I don't agree with your (or his) spaceship idea of floating Christ down to earth and making a safe landing in Mary's womb. The Bible just does not teach such far fetched ideas that contradict the plain teaching of Scripture.

I don't understand why it is so difficult to believe the plain teaching of:

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Again you are twisting my words to slander me and apparently Dr Morris as well.

In none of my posts have I said anything about a spaceship.

I gave Scripture as to what happened. You have a problem with Scripture? Take it up with God. He wrote the book.

Quit slandering my name. It is very unChrist-like.

 

[DHK]

Again you are twisting my words to slander me and apparently Dr Morris as well.

In none of my posts have I said anything about a spaceship.

I gave Scripture as to what happened. You have a problem with Scripture? Take it up with God. He wrote the book.

Quit slandering my name. It is very unChrist-like.

"I don't agree with your (or his) spaceship idea of floating Christ down to earth and making a safe landing in Mary's womb."

The above is my description of his/yours theory of the virgin birth. There is no slander involved. It is my words, my description; I wasn't quoting anyone. No slander is involved.

As far as Scripture is considered, I quoted to you Mat.1:20; you failed to explain it. In the light of your above post shall I call it slander?
Why not just explain the verse instead; along with Luke 1:35.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

"I don't agree with your (or his) spaceship idea of floating Christ down to earth and making a safe landing in Mary's womb."

The above is my description of his/yours theory of the virgin birth. There is no slander involved. It is my words, my description; I wasn't quoting anyone. No slander is involved.

As far as Scripture is considered, I quoted to you Mat.1:20; you failed to explain it. In the light of your above post shall I call it slander?
Why not just explain the verse instead; along with Luke 1:35.

I explained it previously in this thread and in the prior thread and you did not accept it.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

'That which is conceived' is the Greek word γεννάω gennao.

It means beget or begotten in this verse as it is speaking of the one who placed the Son in Mary's Womb, the Holy Ghost.

It nowhere means ovum, that is your reading into the text what is not there.

God prepared Christ a body. He placed that body in Mary's womb. Whether you want to accept that or not, it happened.

Mary's egg could not have been used or Christ would not have been the spotless lamb sacrifice that was needed. He would have had the stain of sin that was pronounced upon all flesh because of that one act of disobedience in the Garden of Eden. He would have needed a Savior had He been of Mary's ovum.

It is not hard to see if one just study the Word with the natural blinders off.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

"I don't agree with your (or his) spaceship idea of floating Christ down to earth and making a safe landing in Mary's womb."

The above is my description of his/yours theory of the virgin birth. There is no slander involved. It is my words, my description; I wasn't quoting anyone. No slander is involved.

It is slandering me. You are saying it is mine and Dr Morris' idea that a spaceship floated Christ down to earth. I never said one word about Christ floating down to earth in a spaceship at all. You came up with that theory. It was not my idea because I never said it.

Please quit lying about me.

 

[DHK]

It is slandering me. I never said one word about Christ floating down to earth in a spaceship at all. You came up with that theory. It was not my idea because I never said it.

Please quit lying about me.

I never said you said that.
Shall I say that you are falsely accusing me of falsely accusing you. Don't be silly.
Would you rather me use a different language to express my ideas. English is a medium of communication. In America and Canada there is such a thing as freedom of speech. I did not quote you. I described what I believe you believe in my own words. That is my opinion. FYI, you can't prove an opinion wrong. I am entitled to an opinion. It is a free country.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Here is what you said, DHK.

"I don't agree with your (or his) spaceship idea of floating Christ down to earth and making a safe landing in Mary's womb."

Who is the the your (or his) referring to if not Dr Morris and myself? what is the next two words? spaceship idea.

You are clearly saying that Dr Morris and mysefl came up with a spaceship idea.

That, my friend, is a slander on my character and that of Dr Morris' character as well.

It is an out and out lie, because that idea of a spaceship never entered my mind and I am quite sure it never entered the late Dr Morris' mind either.

 

[DHK]

'That which is conceived' is the Greek word γεννάω gennao.

It means beget or begotten in this verse as it is speaking of the one who placed the Son in Mary's Womb, the Holy Ghost.

Words have different meanings according to the context in which they are used. A characteristic of a cult is to take a meaning of own word and used a key-hole method of interpretation by trying to force that one meaning into every context. That is what you are doing and it is not rightly dividing the Word of truth. It is wrong. The context defines the word.

Now look at the silliness of your way of interpretation.
"That which is in her was conceived by the Holy Spirit." becomes:
That which is in her was born of the Holy Spirit, which nine months later becomes:
That which is in her was born a second time of the Holy Spirit, which some time later, at the time of salvation (if applicable to a believer other than Christ):
That which is saved is born again and again.
So one is born, then born again, then born again and again.
Is that what the Bible teaches? Do you must be born again and again, according to John 3:3. That is what you are teaching, but it is not what my Bible teaches.
My Bible teaches that Christ was born of a virgin conceived (not born) of the Holy Spirit.
Again I ask you why is it so hard for you to believe the simple wording of Mat.1:20. Do you think that the KJV translators are that inadequate in their translation that they didn't do a good job. Do you want me to quote other translations as well?

It nowhere means ovum, that is your reading into the text what is not there.

Then what does Mat.1:20 mean if there is no ovum. It is the ovum that is conceived. Go and read a biology book. Embryos are not conceived. Fetus's are not conceived, but the ovum is. So, yes, the Bible does say ovum, indirectly, in Mat.1:20 (for those that have ears to ear).

God prepared Christ a body. He placed that body in Mary's womb. Whether you want to accept that or not, it happened.

Yes it did happen when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and that holy thing in her was conceived in her by the Holy Spirit which was eventually called the Son of God. Is that hard for you to believe?

Mary's egg could not have been used or Christ would not have been the spotless lamb sacrifice that was needed.

Who says that besides you, and what proof do they have. Give me Scripture that is viable evidence.

He would have had the stain of sin that was pronounced upon all flesh because of that one act of disobedience in the Garden of Eden.

That is just your conjecture. It has nothing to do with the facts of the Word of God.

He would have needed a Savior had He been of Mary's ovum.

The only way that you can draw such silly conclusions is if you deny the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit and deny the virgin birth itself.

 

[DHK]

Here is what you said, DHK.

"I don't agree with your (or his) spaceship idea of floating Christ down to earth and making a safe landing in Mary's womb."

Who is the the your (or his) referring to if not Dr Morris and myself? what is the next two words? spaceship idea.

You are clearly saying that Dr Morris and mysefl came up with a spaceship idea.

That, my friend, is a slander on my character and that of Dr Morris' character as well.

It is an out and out lie, because that idea of a spaceship never entered my mind and I am quite sure it never entered the late Dr Morris' mind either.

Believe what you want. An opinion is not wrong. '