The Necessity of Special Creation

[annsni]

Why does He need a sinner's body since He can still create a new, blemish, sinless body for His beloved Son and can let Him come thru a woman to fulfil the prophecy?

Because of bloodlines, of lineage and heritage. He was not of the line of David if He did not come from Mary's egg.

There was NO prophecy like that. YOu misunderstood greatly as the Saduccees did. The prophecy was simply that Messiah will come as the descendant of the woman, not to come from the seed of the woman. Bring the prophecy!

There was no prophecy that the Messiah would come from the line of David? That He would be born of Eve's seed?

Her DNA was deformed, damaged, weakened since the Fall of Adam. If God can make her DNA perfect, why doesn't God, the Almighty and Merciful God do it for all the mankind in the world?

Because it was not His plan, apparently. He had another idea that what you would choose.

The prophecy was fulfilled by coming out of Surrogate Mother ! You want more contribution by a woman, don't you? But God doesn't owe anything to human beings.

Coming out of a surrogate mother does not a lineage make. No - God doesn't owe anything to human beings, but His plan was to include them in the redemption story.

You are clearly denying the Scripture teaching " Word became Flesh" one of the most fundamental Truth. Denial of such fundamental Truth is a Heresy! Especially rooted in the RCC.

ROTFL! Heresy?? That's a good one! When Mary was born, she had all the ovum in her body. Was that one particular ova the Word? No. It was not until the Holy Spirit came upon her and conceived in her the flesh that was to be the Messiah that the flesh was created. You quite limit God in saying this AND deny God's Word of prophecy.

[You asked for Reputable, Reputable, Reputable, but you didn't know about Henry Morris !

I actually had heard of him - the name sounded familiar but I didn't know in what context. Just because he's a creation scientist doesn't make him a theologian or an expert in knowing everything about Scripture. Both you and he take an unorthodox view of the birth of Christ - a view that the majority of Christiandom has never taken and would label as heresy.

Now come up with another reputable person who believes this. Give me a reputable theologian. I'd like to see that.

Even before the Science, there must have been millions of True believers who denied the Biological Motherhood of Mary though they couldn't organize and express such truth. Mary was a mere creature used for her Creator Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ showed Himself many times during OT era, and He appeared in flesh to the world. He wrestled with Jacob, appeared to Abraham and ate the food, appeared to Manoa.

The reason why He became a Human Embryo was to fulfill the prophecy of OT.

You can never explain JOhn 1:14 and Hebrews 7:1-5 which denies the mother of Son of God.

Hebrews 7, according to your interpretation would mean that Mary did not birth Jesus, which is not what Scripture says. The Son of God did not have a mother - but Jesus did. The Son of God absolutely has a father - the heavenly Father, but Jesus did not. The Son of God did not have beginning of days but Jesus did. The Son of God did not have end of days - but Jesus did. I think you can see where that's going.

As for John 1:14, the orthodox view of Jesus' origin is completely in line with this Scripture as I said.

 

[DHK]

NOBODY explained why Hebrews writer said Son of God had NO Mother !

I have mentioned to you before that you tend to focus on the deity of Christ almost to the exclusion of the humanity of Christ. He has both. He is the God-Man: totally human and totally God at the same time. The picture given in Hebrews is obviously of Christ in his deity, our High Priest. Christ has no mother and no father. He is not a created being.

But his human nature must be accounted for in some way. The Bible is clear on how Christ came into this world. He was born of a virgin conceived of the Holy Spirit. That is what orthodox Christianity has taught from the first century onward. Whether one translates Mat.1:20 as conceived by the Holy Spirit or fathered by the Holy Spirit it makes no difference. The teaching is still there, and it cannot be denied.

Likewise: the power of the Mighty shall come upon thee and overshadow thee...Luke 1:35
"made of a woman" (Gal.4:4)
Behold I shall give you a sign a virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel (Isa.7:14)

And on and on the list goes.
The Bible's clear teaching is that Christ was born of a virgin, conceived of the Holy Spirit. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[annsni]

Is Messiah Created by God?

Your messiah must be a creature !

Jesus' human form WAS created by God. Let's not get dumb here - we both agree with this.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Annsni: Jesus' human form WAS created by God. Let's not get dumb here - we both agree with this.

HP: I believe all humans are the creation of God, including the man Christ Jesus. Scripture also informs us that not only did Jesus have a mother named Mary but also a father named Joseph. There are two lineages given that both show that Jesus was indeed of the seed of His father, Joseph. Scripture is also clear that it was the Holy Spirit not Joseph that implanted the seed. That still does not negate the fact of the origin of the seed, the seed of Abraham, of the lineage of David, and his earthly father Joseph, just as Scripture plainly states.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Because of bloodlines, of lineage and heritage. He was not of the line of David if He did not come from Mary's egg.

I looked up the word 'lineage' in the Bible. It is found one time only... in Luke 2:4. It is in reference to Jesus being of the lineage of David.

However, upon looking up the word 'lineage' in the Greek, I find:

Strong's Greek Dictionary
3965. patria
Search for G3965 in KJVSL
patria patria pat-ree-ah'
as if feminine of a derivative of 3962; paternal descent, i.e. (concretely) a group of families or a whole race (nation):--family, kindred, lineage.

See Greek 3962

the word primarily means paternal descent, but can also mean family kindred, lineage.

I do not see kindred as being a proper translation, as Christ is not truly kindred of David because He is the Second Adam while David is descended of the First Adam.

Family would be the proper definition for lineage when used in Luke 2:4 for this reason...

Paternal descent refers to a direct son of a son of a son, etc. Maternal is not included in that.

Family... Mary gave birth to Him, but only because God either
(1) placed a fertilized egg in her womb,
(2) removed her nucleus and replaced it with a different set of chromosomes He had prepared, or
(3) placed an already prepared body in her womb for His Son.

Had Mary's egg and chromosomes been used, Jesus would have been of Maternal descent and still inherited the sin nature of the second Adam that was passed down from Adam.

Scripture tells us nothing born of a woman is clean, so, Christ was not born of Mary using her egg and chromosomes else He would have been unclean.

God provided that which was needed in order for the Second Adam to be born, Mary provided the womb only.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

SFIC: Scripture tells us nothing born of a woman is clean,

HP: Where is that reference and who said it?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Thanks SFIC. Let’s look at the first reference. Job 14:5. Let me ask you concerning the context of this verse whether or not Job is dealing with the frail dying state of man or his moral condition? Does this text support the notion of original sin or constitutional moral depravity, or is it simply speaking of being a depraved physical offspring that has come from physically depraved parents? I say that according to the context it is the latter. I believe that at the very most all that can be taken from this text is that nothing else can be expected than for one born to a race of sinners to be a sinner.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I agree that Job is saying one born to a race of sinners is going to be a sinner.

And yet...

... Jesus was born without sin. So, while being born to Mary, she could not have provided any of her DNA or he would have been just as unclean as any othere man, woman or child on earth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

SFIC: I agree that Job is saying one born to a race of sinners is going to be a sinner.

HP: I did not say that. You are trying to take Job’s words here and make hard and fast doctrine out of them, but the man Christ Jesus shoots a big hole in that attempt. He was a man born of a woman and yet was without sin. He took upon Himself the nature of men, and was tempted in ALL points as we are, yet He did not sin. When you take away His humanity, and the fact of His human nature created like ours, you go directly cross-grain to Scripture’s testimony concerning His nature. He was ‘made like unto His brethren’, not created as some other entity or race.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Why is it that when the word ‘nature is used such as ‘by nature the children of wrath’ we almost always hear the cry of proof of original sin, yet when the nature of Christ is said clearly to be that of the ‘nature of Abraham,’ we simply overlook what the dogma of original sin imbibes when the word ‘nature’ is employed, and try and deny the very nature of Christ that Scripture states He has? If the word nature implies original sin, and all men including Abraham had it, does Scripture not clearly state that Christ would have it also, being of the ‘nature’ of Abraham?

What a tangled web of false ideas the false dogma of original sin weaves.

 

[DHK]

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?

Be sure to share these verses with your wife and the contexts in which they were taken.

Job 14:1 Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.
--Full of trouble indeed!!

This entire book was written in poetic form and is full of figures of speech and imagery. This is hardly theological proof that one born of a woman is a sinner or unclean, and that without exception.

Now confess to your wife that you are a man full of trouble, and that your days are now few in number.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

HP: I did not say that. You are trying to take Job’s words here and make hard and fast doctrine out of them, but the man Christ Jesus shoots a big hole in that attempt. He was a man born of a woman and yet was without sin. He took upon Himself the nature of men, and was tempted in ALL points as we are, yet He did not sin. When you take away His humanity, and the fact of His human nature created like ours, you go directly cross-grain to Scripture’s testimony concerning His nature. He was ‘made like unto His brethren’, not created as some other entity or race.

When one puts sinful man's dna in Him, one makes Him what He is not... a sinner.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Why is it that when the word ‘nature is used such as ‘by nature the children of wrath’ we almost always hear the cry of proof of original sin, yet when the nature of Christ is said clearly to be that of the ‘nature of Abraham,’ we simply overlook what the dogma of original sin imbibes when the word ‘nature’ is employed, and try and deny the very nature of Christ that Scripture states He has? If the word nature implies original sin, and all men including Abraham had it, does Scripture not clearly state that Christ would have it also, being of the ‘nature’ of Abraham?

What a tangled web of false ideas the false dogma of original sin weaves.

Where in the world do you get 'nature of abraham' from? That is not even in the Word of God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: This entire book was written in poetic form and is full of figures of speech and imagery. This is hardly theological proof that one born of a woman is a sinner or unclean, and that without exception.

HP: Excellent point regardless of whether or not one supports the notion of original sin. :thumbs: This text cannot be made to walk on all four legs to support OS.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham

.

HP: You are in all actuality correct SFIC. I stand to be corrected. It does not say nature, it says 'seed.' My question to you is how do you define 'seed'?
Does not the 'seed' determine the nature?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Jesus said 'Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy Word is truth.

Is not Job part of the Word of God? It is more than just imagery and figures of speech.

All are born sinners by the Adamic nature. It is wrong to say that Job 14:4 and 25:4 are just imagery and figures of speech.

But Christ is not of the first Adam. He is the second Adam, the Lord from Heaven. There is nothing impure in Him. Had He been born of Mary's egg, He would have had that same Adamic Nature as Mary and He would be in need of a Savior Himself.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ga 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

HP: Here is an interesting verse speaking of the nature of at least some men. Would it be right for one to use this text to support the notion that as such, they were born as Jews, and as Jews, NOT sinners?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

SFIC: Had He been born of Mary's egg, He would have had that same Adamic Nature as Mary and He would be in need of a Savior Himself.

HP: Says who? We need a Savior, NOT because we are born with the nature of men, but rather because all have sinned.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

.

HP: You are in all actuality correct SFIC. I stand to be corrected. It does not say nature, it says 'seed.' My question to you is how do you define 'seed'?
Does not the 'seed' determine the nature?

No, it does not determine the nature. Seed in Hebrews only refers to offspring. He was given birth by Mary making Him of the offspring of Abraham, and yet because He was the second Adam, He did not have the sin nature that all born under the curse of Adam had. Why, because nothing of Adam's race was used in the preparation of His body.

Although God prepared Him a flesh body, it was unlike any other body on earth as it did not require as much sleep as man required; as much food as man required, as much drink as man required. His flesh was able to endure much much more than that of the first Adam.

How can I say such things? By authority of the Word of God. Yes, He did require food, drink, and rest... but I believe far less than you or I need to sustain us.

He was able to endure long fasts (1 account of 40 days), He was able to stay awake much longer than you or I can without dropping over from exhaustion. Again, I believe Scripture backs me on that claim as well. John wrote that if all the miracles that Jesus did prior to the completion of his Gospel, were recorded the world would not be able to contain them. That is an awful lot of miracles. He would have had to traveled much, and been alert much longer than you or I could ever be this side of glory.