I explained the biology of that in my previous post (the longer one). There is only one way of becoming pregnant, and it does involve an ovum. This is what you have to explain. This was the "sign" that Isaiah was speaking of. So how did this conception come about, "seeing that Mary knew not a man," as she told the angel. How do you account for these things, when not even Mary could account for them, and she was the one that was giving birth!!standingfirminChrist said:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Necessity of Special Creation
- Thread starter standingfirminChrist
- Start date
- Status
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Natural biology was not used in the process, DHK, remember, no male? Why did there have to be a ovum, but not sperma? why not the absence of both?
Bingo! It doesn't need the original sperm or egg to do that either. Scientists can take one person's egg and another person's sperm and put both into a totally different person. I believe the Holy Spirit did just this.DHK said:Natural biology also included a baby coming through a birth canal.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
webdog said:
I believe that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she conceived as the Word of God declares.
I believe God put the fertilized egg in Mary and her egg was not used at all. Thank you webdog:wavey:
DHK, just because you keep wanting to cram "conception" down our throats doesn't mean that is what the text is implying. As I already pointed out it ALSO means "with child", which could imply any number of scenarios.DHK said:
Fact is this side of Heaven we cannot know with 100% certainty if Mary's egg was used or if it wasn't. You believe it was, and I tend to believe it wasn't. I believe the Holy Spirit could implant Jesus Christ inside Mary's womb without having to conform to our biology...He is God after all.
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.webdog said:
Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
You have demonstrated nothing. The two phrases are not equal. You still have not accounted for the phrase "for that which is conceived in her." What was conceived in her"? What? Please tell me what was conceived in her?
Vs. 22-23 was a reflection BACK on 20...and was repeating the fact that literally conceived means "begotten", which by definition (of beget) means to be the father of, or more literally "bring into being". This has no implication on the womans seed whatsoever.DHK said:
Why do I feel like I'm talking to my daughter? My husband declared us "the unstoppable force meets the immovable object". :laugh: :BangHead:
Once again, lineage counts on a blood line. I am not of the lineage of John Doe (not real name) even though he is my grandfather. I am adopted into the family through his daughter Pat. But I cannot claim to be a direct descendent because I am not of the same bloodlines.
God is very clearly interested in blood lines in Scripture. We know that He promised Abraham a son and he had one - with Hagar but that was not the son that would lead to the Messiah. God HAD to make the son between he and Sarah because that is the line that He promised the Messiah would come from. Why couldn't Ishmael have substituted? Because the blood line was wrong.
God set clear prophecy out in the Old Testament about where the Messiah would come from. Jesus would not have been the human Messiah born to all of humanity if did not carry that blood line - the DNA of his father David. Even if Mary were a surrogate, there is still a loss of the bloodline and we KNOW how important the blood is to God.
That makes it clear that there HAD to be a connection between Mary and Jesus - more than just housing him for 40 weeks.
Once again, lineage counts on a blood line. I am not of the lineage of John Doe (not real name) even though he is my grandfather. I am adopted into the family through his daughter Pat. But I cannot claim to be a direct descendent because I am not of the same bloodlines.
God is very clearly interested in blood lines in Scripture. We know that He promised Abraham a son and he had one - with Hagar but that was not the son that would lead to the Messiah. God HAD to make the son between he and Sarah because that is the line that He promised the Messiah would come from. Why couldn't Ishmael have substituted? Because the blood line was wrong.
God set clear prophecy out in the Old Testament about where the Messiah would come from. Jesus would not have been the human Messiah born to all of humanity if did not carry that blood line - the DNA of his father David. Even if Mary were a surrogate, there is still a loss of the bloodline and we KNOW how important the blood is to God.
That makes it clear that there HAD to be a connection between Mary and Jesus - more than just housing him for 40 weeks.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status