The physical body of Jesus;

I believe that is the case mima. Nice to meet you.

john.

 

I've often wondered about that

A case of God's spoken word! He spoke the word and the Word became flesh!!

 

I would say no. The Bible says Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit. If Mary's egg were used, Jesus would have been conceived of the Holy Spirit AND Mary. I believe the fetus was implanted into Mary, making her more surrogate than anything else.

 

I would think so. We know only that he wasn't concieved of Joseph. Since scripture makes note of the exception to what would normally be Joseph's contribution, so it's reasonable to presume that Mary's contribution remains intact (egg).

 

Jesus was also fully man. It would make sense for God to use Mary's egg but we'll never know for sure until we can ask him personally.

 

Jesus is called the Son of Man because he took on human nature. Hebrews tells us that he could not pay for sins unless he became like his brothers. He is called the son of David.

How God did it, we can't know, but we do know from the Bible that Jesus was not just placed in Mary's womb. If that were the case, he would not be fully man and would not be related to man. Mary was his mother in the flesh.

 

That is, He is of the same nature as us as to His Humanity, we have come from Adam so to did Jesus otherwise He would not be man but another species.
Speculation.
There is no suggestion that He was cloned from Mary but a singular sperm was introduced for the conception to take place.
This sperm was taken from Adam before the fall. That guarantees His full Humanity and His sinlessness at conception.

john.

 

Does it really matter if it was Mary's egg or not? It's not a doctrinal issue. Regardles of the genetic origin, Mary was still his mother, and Joseph was still his father.

 

Unity of the species is crucial to doctrine Johnv. The Second Adam must be from Adam.

john.

 

You do make a good point, johnp. But, sicne God did it, and sine God can do anything, I'm sure it's possible for God to have made Jesus using neither Mary's egg nor Joseph's sperm. So, to that point, it's not doctrinally relevant.

However, just so we're clear, I believe Mary's egg was used.

 

What's original sand? I assume you mean original sin? The Jews believed that original sin was male-inhierited. That's why it's referred to the sin of Adam, not the sin of Adam and Eve.

 

Hello mima.

No the sin goes through the male line not the female although Jesus was affected physically by the affects of sin.
Rom 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering...
Mary's egg carried the damage but not the condemnation of sin.

john.

 

I would say that there is no biblical evidence that original sin is passed genetically. Our sin nature is inherited in some way but I don't necessarily think that this is a physical inheritance.

However even if it was physical inheritance and if God could supernaturally fertilize Mary's egg or supernaturally impregnate Mary with something that wasn't her egg, why couldn't he also prevent the physical inheritance of original sin. It is this thinking that Mary would pass original sin to Jesus that lead the Catholics to come up with the Immaculate Conception of Mary so that she would not have original sin.

 

I don't believe God used Mary's egg at all. Luke 1:30-35:

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, 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. (Luke 1:30-35)

Mary was a chosen vessel through whom the Son of God would "become flesh" (John 1:14) and "tabernacle" among us. Jesus was fully God and fully man.

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: (Romans 8:3)

Jesus Christ was God's ONLY BEGOTTEN SON (John 3:16)

 

Yes, Jesus was formed from the dust of the earth just as every other human being is. So, you could say that he inherited original sand or original dust from Mary. His body was dust, as is ours. The incarnation was complete. But of course, we're more than our physical body, and in an even greater sense, so is he.

 

First of all, what is original sand? I thought the term was original sin. Jesus was not formed from the dust of the ground--He is the eternal God--God is not dust!! He was BEGOTTEN--not created. The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she conceived--God did not need Mary's egg--He needed Mary and her obedience. Mary was a vessel--she was a "surrogate"--(Luke 1:30-35).

 

Human beings are dust (Genesis 2:19, Job 4:17-19, 10:9, Psalm 104:29-30, Ecclesiastes 3:18-21, etc.), and Jesus was fully human. The incarnation was real. This does not take away from the fact that Jesus was also fully God. Matter is not inherently bad, since it was made by God, so there is no moral issue with God being made flesh.

I don't accept the Augustinian view of original sin or the sin nature. I think it's a result of human sinfulness, rather than something in our genes or otherwise heritable. It's passed down through our actions. We live in a world corrupted by the sins of those before us, all the way back to the original sin. We all pass on to future generations a world tainted by the effects of our sins as well. It was only the first humans who lived in a world without that taint.

I think Jesus was made like us in every way (Hebrews 2:14-18). He was tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin, and this is why he can sympathize with our weaknesses (Hebrews 4:15). Because of this, he's our perfect High Priest. It doesn't make sense to me to say that he was made like us and tempted like us in every way, except for that one thing that makes us sin -- our inherited sin nature.

An example. I live in a predominantly white city. A South African was once talking with me and another man about the discrimination she faced due to being South African. People avoided her and treated her differently. The other man said, "Yeah, I'm a South African too, and I know exactly how you feel." The woman was a bit taken aback, since the man was white. He was indeed from South Africa, but unlike her, he was white.

Just as I don't think this man could really empathize with what she was going through because he lacked the single most important cause of the discrimination -- having a skin colour that is conspicuous here -- so too I also think it doesn't make sense to say Jesus was tempted exactly like we are, except for having that sin nature that makes us sin.

I'm not saying that Jesus had an inherited sin nature, but rather that our sin nature is a taint that affects our world and everyone in it, not something we inherit directly from our parents. It entered the world through the first sin, rather than entering our genes or something else within us (Romans 5:12-21). Jesus experienced this sin in the world just as much as (actually more than) everyone else. I think this makes his perfect life more significant. It also makes our sin more significant, because we can't say that if we were Adam, born without a sin nature, we'd have a better chance. Nothing forces us to sin any more than anything forced Adam to sin, and so the sin we all commit truly is our fault, and we are without excuse.