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!
You have yet to show me Scripture to show an ovum was used. I have shown Scripture that a body was prepared (Hebrews 10:5)the Lord. I have showed He came in the likeness of sinful flesh and not the likeness of an embryo. (Romans 8:3)DHK said:Scripture and verse please. The Bible does not quote to us modern biological terms, so you are speaking outside of your realm. We have far more evidence that he did use an ovum than you do that he didn't. You are giving the same lame argument that the J.W.s use against the trinity. The word "trinity" isn't in the Bible therefore the trinity isn't taught. That is the same argument you use.
annsni said:Just to make my life easier and for me to not type the same thing again, see post #80 http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1166682&postcount=80
If I bred a mare with a stallion via invitro fertilization and placed that embryo into another mare - and passed off that foal as being out of the surrogate mare, I'd be lying.
God told us that the Messiah would be of the line of David and Eve's seed and to say that because Jesus grew in Mary, He's of the line of David is denying the basic truths of lineage and making God a liar.
donnA said:Not sure if you know this or not, but Jesus isn't a horse, and God doesn't do things like we do.
Yes, It was Elizabeth that was six months pregnant. Mary was showing that she was pregnant (possibly 3 months). That is why Joseph was minded to put her away. And then she went and stayed 3 months with Elizabeth. We know not how long the travel time took for Mary to go to where Elizabeth was staying and then to make the long journey all the way to Bethlehem. What we do know is that she "was great with child" and that is considerably more than seven months.standingfirminChrist said:Mary was not six months pregnant when she visited Elisabeth, else Elisabeth carried John the Baptist in her womb well past the natural time.
At the time Mary was overshadowed by the Spirit, Elisabeth was already 6 months carrying John.
As I said, read the account again.
They that have ears to hear let them hear.standingfirminChrist said:You have yet to show me Scripture to show an ovum was used. I have shown Scripture that a body was prepared (Hebrews 10:5)the Lord. I have showed He came in the likeness of sinful flesh and not the likeness of an embryo. (Romans 8:3)
You have yet to show Scripture where Mary's ovum was used or even needed.
DHK said:Yes, It was Elizabeth that was six months pregnant. Mary was showing that she was pregnant (possibly 3 months). That is why Joseph was minded to put her away. And then she went and stayed 3 months with Elizabeth. We know not how long the travel time took for Mary to go to where Elizabeth was staying and then to make the long journey all the way to Bethlehem. What we do know is that she "was great with child" and that is considerably more than seven months.
"Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife." I don't think that Joseph was alone then.standingfirminChrist said:Not according to the Harmony of the Gospels. According to the Harmony of the Gospels, Mary went to visit with Elisabeth before Joseph was visited by the angel..
DHK said:"Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife." I don't think that Joseph was alone then.
However we are off topic. What part of the humanity of Christ are you willing to forego in the development of Christ as a baby? Would you like me to detail for you what happens month by month so that you can choose what month or even week Christ was plummetted to earth, and what part of his embryonic process he missed.
For example it is in the first month that the brain rapidly develops. Did Christ miss that part of his "humanity"? Was he then totally man?
donnA said:Not sure if you know this or not, but Jesus isn't a horse, and God doesn't do things like we do.
1. It was miraculous.standingfirminChrist said:You can talk about the natural reproductive process all you want, Bro. But you continue to fail to take into account that it was not natural at all.
There you go again. Scripture does not say she was nine months pregnant. Why say she was?DHK said:1. It was miraculous.
2. Even in the miraculous God normally involves the natural.
3. Example:
Numbers 16:31-32 And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that was under them: And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods.
An earthquake is not a miracle. It is a natural event. This is what happened when the "ground clave asunder that was under them: And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up..."
--The miracle was in the timing. Moses said it was going to happen as a judgement right then, and it did. God uses natural means to perform miracles.
4. The preponderance of Scripture shows that Mary was "great with child" near nine months pregnant. There was an urgency--no room at the inn. This was no premature infant that had a seven month pregnancy. Nor did Joseph notice one day a perfectly normal Mary, and then the next day a two month pregnant woman. Neither scenario makes sense. Which part of the embryonic process; the entire human pregnancy was Christ missing when he came to earth "as a man"?
5. Why are you unwilling to take the Scripture at its word when it says: "that which is in you is conceived of the Holy Spirit? What is that which is in you?
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.
I gave my reasons. I am sure she was. I will do more research on it later.standingfirminChrist said:There you go again. Scripture does not say she was nine months pregnant. Why say she was?
You don't take Mat.1:20 at face value, do you?That which was in her was Christ. I do take Scripture at its Word as I have demonstrated time and again in this thread and in the previous one on this subject.
A polite way of saying: I don't want to tell you what it means, because I don't know. It shatters what I believe.standingfirminChrist said:I take it at the value that Scripture declares it to be in light of what the angel told Mary in Luke 1
DHK said:A polite way of saying: I don't want to tell you what it means, because I don't know. It shatters what I believe.
Expound the verse SFIC.
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.
You can't understand English either?standingfirminChrist said:I agree. The Word of God does shatter what you believe concerning Mary's egg being used. Glad you finally see that.