The Necessity of Special Creation

[donnA]

Jesus escaped that through the virgin birth

What your saying is Mary had no sin nature. Which of course is RCC.

 

[DHK]

Another Scripture to show the egg is not the seed:

Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Here Eve shows that the seed is the offspring...that which was born, not to be born as some would argue

As I showed in one of my posts, context determines the meaning of the word. One word may have more than one meaning. I don't deny that here. Go back to Morris. If you have Genesis Record written by him you will find that Eve, in each successive son that she bears is looking for that Messiah that was promised in "her seed" by the Lord. Of course, she didn't fully understand the prophecy. But she knew a deliverer was coming. But she didn't know when. She was hoping it would be soon. And she names her children accordingly. Check out Morris. He will tell you the same thing.

 

[DHK]

What your saying is Mary had no sin nature. Which of course is RCC.

No, I didn't say that. To assume that is totally illogical. If Mary was to have no sin, then so would her mother, and grandmother, and great-grandmother, etc., right back down to Adam. Think about that. Where would it stop? How many sinless people would we have then?

There is a reason why the Bible says the power of the Mighty shall overshadow thee.
And again, you keep ignoring this very basic fact: the sin nature is passed down through the man--the Adamic nature.--not the woman. You are not being logical.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

The only way God could have used Mary's egg would be if He removed the nucleus of her egg... that which carried her dna. Had her dna been used, Christ would not have been perfect.

Job 14:4 Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Had Christ been conceived with Mary's egg and dna, he could not have been clean.

And a clean sacrifice was the only one God would accept.

 

[DHK]

The only way God could have used Mary's egg would be if He removed the nucleus of her egg... that which carried her dna. Had her dna been used, Christ would not have been perfect.

Job 14:4 Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Had Christ been conceived with Mary's egg and dna, he could not have been clean.

And a clean sacrifice was the only one God would accept.

We can't get too far into needless speculation here. What exactly the Holy Spirit did at the time of conception we don't know, except to say that it was miraculous. DNA carries the properties of the person. Obviously Christ had physical properities. He did look like someone, and God the Father is Spirit with no physical features. People often say that my son looks like his mother. That could have been possible to some degree, but not necessarily (in regards to Christ).

The main thing to be concerned about is that the Holy Spirit was involved at conception. Christ received his humanity at that time--the time when all life begins. Biology tells us that the blood of the mother is not given to the embryo, but the embryo produces its own blood, thus the blood at the cross was the blood of Christ, and not Mary's. Christ was fully God and fully man at the same time. Any thing further than that remains to us a mystery, and ought to be.

 

[annsni]

The only way God could have used Mary's egg would be if He removed the nucleus of her egg... that which carried her dna. Had her dna been used, Christ would not have been perfect.

Job 14:4 Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Had Christ been conceived with Mary's egg and dna, he could not have been clean.

And a clean sacrifice was the only one God would accept.

Can I ask a direct question? Could God have created a perfect Messiah from the egg of Mary?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

only if He removed the nucleus of Mary's egg, annsni.

The nucleus is what carries the dna. Had her dna been used, Christ would not have been the perfect sacrifice needed, for his flesh would have inherited the sin nature that was passed down from Adam to all men.

As Job said,

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

and

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Christ had to be that clean sacrifice needed. In the OT sacrifices, lambs with even a blemish on the skin were not accepted, would God expect less from His Son?

This is part of what my biologist friend who teaches both Bible and Biology shared with me this morning. The one I had emailed.

 

[DHK]

only if He removed the nucleus of Mary's egg, annsni.

The nucleus is what carries the dna. Had her dna been used, Christ would not have been the perfect sacrifice needed, for his flesh would have inherited the sin nature that was passed down from Adam to all men.

Acts 10:15 A voice came to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed, you must not call unclean." (WEB)
--The sin nature is passed down from Adam. The reason Christ avoided the sin nature is because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Did the Holy Spirit have a sin nature? Did the Holy Spirit have contaminated DNA? Would it not be possible for the Holy Spirit to wipe that slate clean as it were. This really seems to bother you. One need not go back that far and speculate.
It simply says that

Luke 1:35 The angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of God.

How can you derive from that verse that DNA was contaminated. We conclude a miraculous event took place at conception. We don't conclude that Christ came in a "spaceship" and was plunked into the womb somewhere near the end of the first term. You go one from one extreme to another SFIC. First you say you don't believe in any biology at all (in reference to the birth of Christ). Then you believe in so much biology that you now leave out the miraculous completely.

Christ had to be that clean sacrifice needed. In the OT sacrifices, lambs with even a blemish on the skin were not accepted, would God expect less from His Son?

This is part of what my biologist friend shared with me this morning. The one I had emailed.

Your inference is that the Holy Spirit is not clean.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

God was speaking of the Gentile nation there, DHK, not an ovum.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

DHK, I do not appreciate your lying about me. I never once said I did not believe in biology at all.

In your grasping to be right, you are slandering me, and I believe, taking away from the true miracle.

The whole of the human race was pronounced under a curse because of the fall in Eden. Had Eve's dna been used, her dna would have been passed to Jesus, contaminating Him.

I am so glad her dna was not used.

 

[DHK]

God was speaking of the Gentile nation there, DHK, not an ovum.

It is a principle. Annsi has been asking you the same question in different words. I answered it with Scripture. Yes God can bring Christ out from Mary, though Mary is a sinner.
God is the Creator of the Universe, the one who came to earth as the Son of God born by a virgin and conceived by the Holy Spirit. It was a miracle. He was totally God and totally man. My God is omnipotent, and able to do all things, even make that which is seemingly unclean, clean. Of course he did that to me when I was saved.

 

[donnA]

It is called the ovarian cycle. The ovary produces and releases an ovum. If an ovum is prepared but the uterus is not prepared to receive it a pregnancy will not develop, and vice versa.
Every month a mature follicle appears on the surface of the ovary. After two weeks of development and undergoing meiosis, the follicle ruptures and releases an ovum--a process called ovulation.
(didn't want to get too much into biology, but you did ask)

Us poor dumb women obviously know nothing about our bodies. IS that right?
She was addressing a previous statment made by you.

 

[DHK]

I am so glad her dna was not used.

We don't know that for sure. I mentioned that it might be wise not to speculate that far. But let me ask you some questions.

If I take some skin cells and put them under a microscope, what will I see? I know what I will see: the membrane, a nucleus, and the other parts of a living cell.

If I take a plant cell and put it under a microscope what will I see. I will see some of the same things, but many things will be different.

In the skin cell will I be able to see my sin nature?
What about in a blood cell under a microscope?
--Then will I be able to see my sin nature?
--What if I can get an ovum there, would I be able to see my sin nature (or someone's sin nature)?
--In what part of the body, put under the microscope, will I be able to see the sin nature?

The answer is, I won't--not even in the chromosomes or in the DNA. Though it is passed on from man to man or through the man, it is spiritual. You cannot see it. It is not in your actual flesh. It is in your mind, your spirit. You are either a servant to sin or a servant to God. Which one?

Jesus said to the Pharisees that their Father was the devil.
He said the Ephesians that "they were the children of wrath." The sin nature is spiritual though passed down in a physical manner. You can't see it.

It really doesn't matter if Christ has the DNA or not. He doesn't have a sin nature inherited by man. His mind is the mind of God. It is divine. The organic part of it is human. He is born without sin. You can't look at a hunk of flesh and see sin. Sin comes from the heart--the mind, the spirit.

As Paul said:
Romans 7:24-25 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

 

[DHK]

Us poor dumb women obviously know nothing about our bodies. IS that right?
She was addressing a previous statment made by you.

Yes that information is correct. What do you think is inaccurate?

 

[Linda64]

Us poor dumb women obviously know nothing about our bodies. IS that right?
She was addressing a previous statment made by you.

Absolutely correct...I was addressing DHK's previous statement. When I read it, I sort of laughed to myself...like I don't know how my body works? I believe I know the basics...enough to have 2 children. After 65 years on this earth, I better know something by now...don't ya think?:laugh:

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

This seems to be a hot topic that is not going to cause anyone to change their mind about how they believe.

Regardless, of that fact, or which 'side' we are on, we must be very careful not to imply that one is spewing heresy, or lying...whether it be member, moderator, or administrator, that is not allowed on this board.

We must also be careful about saying 'your' God and 'my' God as if they were different.

Surely we can agree that everyone posting in this thread worships the one and only true God.

There are things in the Bible that the finite mind cannot understand. God is God and He will do His will...whether we want to believe it or not.

Why not wait until we get to Heaven and ask Him some of these questions instead of debating Jesus' heritage? All I need to know is that He is the Son of the living God.

God said it and that settles it...whether we believe it or not doesn't matter.

Let's play nice people or this thread will be closed and all discussion on this topic will cease...

 

[DHK]

DHK, I do not appreciate your lying about me. I never once said I did not believe in biology at all.

In your grasping to be right, you are slandering me, and I believe, taking away from the true miracle.

I never slandered you.
Here is what you said:

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?

You said: "Natural biology was not used."
I took you at your word.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Here is what you said in #208:

You go one from one extreme to another SFIC. First you say you don't believe in any biology at all. Then you believe in so much biology that you now leave out the miraculous completely.

And I replied that I never said I don't believe in biology at all.

Check my posts, DHK, I never once said I don't believe in any biology at all. I said natural biology was not used in the repreductive process in the conception.

There is a big difference in 'I don't believe in biology' and 'I don't believe natural biology was used.' A big difference.

Your said I said something I never once said. That is slandering my name and breaking the rules of the bb about showing grace to others.

 

[annsni]

As I said earlier, this is:

The unstoppable force meets the immovable object.

:laugh:

 

[DHK]

Here is what you said in #208:
And I replied that I never said I don't believe in biology at all.

I edited my post to reflect accurately what you had previously said. Now can we move on.