Jesus Christ was Born of Woman . . . fact or fiction?

Our bodies are the means by which sin acts. Our souls and bodies are juxtaposed as one so that you cannot cut one from the other.
I had a friend who died from a brain tumor. The doctors could not do surgery because the tendrils of the tumor ran throughout the brain. You could not separate the tumor from the brain without death occuring.
You cannot separate the body from the soul when sin is involved without death occuring.

Get it Now???

 

If the body is sin as you erroneously claim – then Christ was sinful.
That is flat-out heresy.

The body is simply the MEANS for us to sin. We ALSO sin in our mind and heart – without the Body, as Christ taught regarding adultery.

STUDY your Bible . . ..

 

Not necessarily.
A surrogate mother can conceive via test tube fertilization of two other person's, not her own egg. She can carry that child to birth.
If humans can accomplish this feat, via science, how much easier is it for the God of Creation to plant himself in the womb of Mary without ever using her dna? It is simple. It still makes Jesus entirely human and entirely susceptible to temptation. Yet, Jesus is without sin. If Mary's dna is used, then the corruption of a human sin nature is woven into Jesus blood. Why do you think it is necessary for the Roman Catholic Church to declare Mary as sinless?

 

Your heart and mind function without the body? Impressive feat.

 

Not before the foundation of the world? Only at conception?
Of course, you are shooting from the hip with no biblical support.
Your name on this site tells us how much you worship Mary. You think she's sinless and a perpetual virgin, despite the Bible.
Let me know when you are willing to face your error.

 

Nope, Christ was not sinful because...like Adam...he is perfect in nature. Jesus would be born in sin if Mary's dna was involved. But, like Adam, Jesus needed no one else's dna to be fully human.

 

Your heretical position that Christ was not fully human is called “Docetism” – and it’s nothing new.
This heresy was addressed and defeated over 1500 years ago.

Show me where the Bible teaches ANYTHING other than the fact that Mary was Jesus’ mother – FULLY and COMPLETELY. I especially want to read the part where it says that she was only a “vessel” and nothing more.

Chapter and Verse, please . . .

 

Again, you outright lie.
I have always said Jesus is fully human, just as Adam was fully human.
You, however, cannot accept that God came as a human being, without the need for a male sperm or a female egg. Yet, Adam didn't need a male sperm or female egg to exist as fully human.
Why do you doubt what God can do?
As for heresy, your church has tossed that name around like using a conjunction in a sentence. It's so common that it becomes laughable when your church invokes the word.
You are just upset because your precious Mary isn't the perpetual virgin you want her to be...

 

Like I said befor - Show me where the Bible teaches ANYTHING other than the fact that Mary was Jesus’ mother – FULLY and COMPLETELY.
I especially want to read the part where it says that she was only a “vessel” and nothing more.

Chapter and Verse, please . . .

 

You struggle with biology and motherhood, don't you.
You are free to believe that Mary and her corrupted egg were used to form God in the flesh. I'm not stopping you from having that belief.
I have stated my view and precisely why I hold this view. You'll just have to live with the reality that your position has flaws (literally) embedded into it while my position is perfect in that God is perfect and does not need a human egg to be fully human.

 

And yet, you continue to FAIL to show me where the Bible teaches ANYTHING other than the fact that Mary was Jesus’ mother – FULLY and COMPLETELy.

WHY is that??

 

Ummmmmm, I struggle with biology??

As I educated you earlier - Scripture calls Mary the MOTHER of Jesus. A woman whose egg is not used to conceive and is merely a vessel is called a “surrogate”.

Can you show me where the Bible calls Mary a “surrogate” and NOT a mother??

That's what I thought . . .

 

Is the Bible written to declare a person's biological connection? You have moved the goalposts in a desperate attempt to deny God's capacity to be fully human and grow in Mary's womb without any dna from Mary being needed.
So, conversely, you cannot produce one verse that says Mary's egg was used in the forming of the God-man in her womb.
Such a silly thing you demand. Why?
Because you worship Mary as a sinless human, that's why.

 

Is Mary a god and not a sinful human being?
You start with a flawed premise that Mary was sinless and thus not corrupt, like all other humans. Your false premise is needed to make your theory work. Yet, we know Mary is a sinner because she openly declares she needs a Savior. Only sinners need a Savior.

So, the only education you provide is how you start with a flawed premise.
Second, there is nothing inherently wrong with Mary being the surrogate host to the God-man who is then commissioned by God to raise Jesus in her and Joseph's family. Just because she isn't the biological creator of Jesus does not make her role of mother any less real.
Clearly you have never interacted with an adoptive parents or you would realize how they are mother's despite no genetic connection.

 

God's flesh in humanity.
Just like the first Adam had no other human beings dna when God created him.
You struggle with this.

 

Then SHOW ME the verse.
WHERE does it say that Mary was just a surrogate??

Is Scripture lying when it calls her His "Mother"??

 

WRONG.
The angel said to Mary: "YOU will conceive."
He didn’t say, "A child will be IMPLANTED".

SHE conceived, which means HER egg was fertilized.

This destroys your entire argument . . .