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

[JoeT]

That...is why it is a miracle. Just like Sarah bearing Isaac in her old age, it defies common sense. Just like a virgin being pregnant, it defies common sense.
For Jesus to be perfect, he must be a man, created like Adam, with no sin. Mary is a sinner. Her very nature is corrupt. God was not corrupted by Mary's dna. God is perfect, as was the first Adam. This is why Jesus is called the second Adam. But, Jesus passes through Satan's temptations without sinning.
Sorry, Mary doesn't get worshipped.

You're creating a false god in the sense that God created God. We confess that God begot His only son. Consequently, as was the case of Jesus Christ, the son of God is born of woman. Hence, whatever is the nature of this woman is the nature of this man, Jesus Christ. If the nature of Mary is sin then too Jesus Christ would have the nature of sin. But, the reality is that God had different plans than yours. His Son was born of a new Eve before the fall. Hence her son defeated Satan as foretold in Genesis.

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." [Genesis 3:15]​

JoeT

 

[Particular]

You're creating a false god in the sense that God created God. We confess that God begot His only son. Consequently, as was the case of Jesus Christ, the son of God is born of woman. Hence, whatever is the nature of this woman is the nature of this man, Jesus Christ. If the nature of Mary is sin then too Jesus Christ would have the nature of sin. But, the reality is that God had different plans than yours. His Son was born of a new Eve before the fall. Hence her son defeated Satan as foretold in Genesis.

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." [Genesis 3:15]​

JoeT

No.
I am saying God the Son exchanged his glory and became human flesh. The second Adam. The promised one from Genesis 3 of whom Moses and the Prophets declared would one day come.
You are trying to limit God's immutability and force Mary's dna upon God in order for God to be human. God doesn't need anyone's corrupt dna in order to be human.
Mary is not a new Eve. Mary is a corrupt, young sinner like all women and men. She was graciously chosen, despite her corruption, to be the host where God would dwell for 9 months and then raise the God-man until he reached maturity. Mary made many mistakes. She lost Jesus. She got mad at Jesus when she lost him. She pushed he will upon Jesus to fix a problem at a wedding. Mary was flawed, like all humanity.
Your worship of Mary is idolatry.

 

[37818]

They are both legal geneology's. Jesus father is God and he declares this truth throughout the gospels. He never refers to his mother, except when he is actually in dialogue with her.
I understand the traditional teaching passed down through generations. But, that teaching struggles to create a means by which Mary's sin nature doesn't flaw Jesus. The argument is, in my opinion, convoluted. Jesus does not need either Joseph or Mary's dna in order to be fully human, just as Adam did not need anyone's dna to be fully human.

Genesis 3:22 teaches the knowledge of good and evil is God's divine knowledge. Genesis 3 teaches man obtaining it is the cause of man's sinful nature. All the false teachings about mankind being sinful fail in understanding this fundamental truth. Unless Jesus is a genetic descent from Adam through His mother according to the Biblical texts is to make God a fraud.

 

[Particular]

Genesis 3:22 teaches the knowledge of good and evil is God's divine knowledge. Genesis 3 teaches man obtaining it is the cause of man's sinful nature. All the false teachings about mankind being sinful fail in understanding this fundamental truth. Unless Jesus is a genetic descent from Adam through His mother according to the Biblical texts is to make God a fraud.

Scripture teaches that man disobeyed God. That is the source of our corruption.
It was not man obtaining the knowledge of good and evil. I was man rebelling against God's command.
Hast God not said...?
Adam rebelled. Adam disobeyed.
Now, skip to the new Adam and see his temptation in Luke 4. The same test was given.
Hast God not said...?
Jesus obeyed. He did not sin. This is precisely why the Second Adam is our Redeemer. He was without sin, yet the sin of the Elect was laid upon him and God's wrath toward sin was brought with full force upon him. By his stripes we were healed.
That is Amazing Grace. May we be humbled by what God has done on our behalf.

 

[Calminian]

Baptism removes all sin, including original sin which is the deprivation of Adam's original justice. ....

Water baptism removes sin? Scripture says the opposite.

1Pet. 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,​

The indwelling Spirit seals us for salvation, not the symbol.

 

[Calminian]

You're creating a false god in the sense that God created God. We confess that God begot His only son. Consequently, as was the case of Jesus Christ, the son of God is born of woman. Hence, whatever is the nature of this woman is the nature of this man, Jesus Christ. If the nature of Mary is sin then too Jesus Christ would have the nature of sin. But, the reality is that God had different plans than yours. His Son was born of a new Eve before the fall. Hence her son defeated Satan as foretold in Genesis.

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." [Genesis 3:15]​

JoeT

But even the verse you quote is post fall.

 

[1689Dave]

Jesus is God as far as his person. And God cannot sin. He had a fully human nature and a fully divine nature but his person is God.

 

[Walpole]

Water baptism removes sin?

Yes...

---> "Then Peter said unto them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.'" - Acts 2:38

Scripture says the opposite.

Verse please.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

1Pet. 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,​

The indwelling Spirit seals us for salvation, not the symbol.

The verse you quoted says baptism saves and that it does not remove dirt from the body. No one is arguing baptism is for washing dirt from one's body. (That is what baths are for.)

 

[Calminian]

Yes...

---> "Then Peter said unto them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.'" - Acts 2:38



Verse please.




The verse you quoted says baptism saves and that it does not remove dirt from the body. No one is arguing baptism is for washing dirt from one's body. (That is what baths are for.)

Wow, you guys are in some serious denial. The verse says exactly the opposite of what you're saying. So I'll keep repeating it.

1Pet. 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,​

Peter completely destroys your case in one verse.

• He reveals water baptism is a symbol of the true baptism and is not the actual baptism itself.
• He reveals that the water which removes the dirt is not the baptism that saves.
• He reveals that the true baptism is a pledge made possible by the resurrection of Christ.

Matthew 3:11 confirms this as well. Christ will come and fulfill the symbol of water baptism John was using baptizing us in the Spirit.

Sorry, guys your water is just a symbol, and if you're placing your trust in it, you're in a very dangerous place. You're merely removing some external dirt.

 

[Walpole]

Wow, you guys are in some serious denial. The verse says exactly the opposite of what you're saying. So I'll keep repeating it.

1Pet. 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,​

Peter completely destroys your case in one verse.

• He reveals water baptism is a symbol of the true baptism and is not the actual baptism itself.
• He reveals that the water which removes the dirt is not the baptism that saves.
• He reveals that the true baptism is a pledge made possible by the resurrection of Christ.

Matthew 3:11 confirms this as well. Christ will come and fulfill the symbol of water baptism John was using baptizing us in the Spirit.

Sorry, guys your water is just a symbol, and if you're placing your trust in it, you're in a very dangerous place. You're merely removing some external dirt.

It's as if you are not even reading the passage you have pasted, which refutes your entire argument.

"...to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:20-21)

- The eight (Noah and his family) were saved through water
- This water prefigured the waters of baptism
- This baptism now saves you
- Because the waters of baptism are salvific, it is not for the removal of dirt from one's body


Baptism, by definition, necessitates water. Yet water by itself is not a baptism and it exercises no power on its own; for it is but a material sign of what is communicated spiritually. It is only with the Holy Spirit does it become baptism. For baptism requires water and the Holy Spirit. (cf. John 3:5)

 

[Calminian]

It's as if you are not even reading the passage you have pasted, which refutes your entire argument.

I would say the same for you. It's as if you've shut your brain off and are allowing some other authority to tell you what is means.

"...to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:20-21)

- The eight (Noah and his family) were saved through water
- This water prefigured the waters of baptism
- This baptism now saves you
- Because the waters of baptism are salvific, it is not for the removal of dirt from one's body

Wow, this is some serious hermeneutical backflipping. The waters of the flood (do you even believe in the historical worldwide flood?) are symbolic of the waters of baptism. That makes perfect sense unless you somehow believe that Noah and family were saved by the flood??? Surely you don't believe this? That the Flood waters saved Noah?

Then by extension you also should not believe that the symbolical waters of baptism save the sinner, but rather symbolize the death burial and resurrection that saved them.

In case you're still confused, God saved Noah from physical death through the Ark, and God saves us from spiritual death by grace through faith in Christ.

Baptism, by definition, necessitates water. ....

Not the baptism that saves. John the Baptist said Christ would come later and baptize with the Spirit. The thief on the Cross was never baptized by water, but we was baptized by the Spirit and saved.

You're confusing the symbol with the reality behind it.

 

[JoeT]

Jesus is God as far as his person. And God cannot sin. He had a fully human nature and a fully divine nature but his person is God.

Jesus is also said to be born of woman. Many here believe that sin is in the nature of man (it is the flesh that is evil), consequently simply believing a man born of woman Jesus has this fleshy sin - justify how can God and fleshy sin be uniquely and insuperably joined?

I've never seen anyone justify saying Jesus is the union of man and God without the aid of magic while denying the Virgin Mary. Without the Virgin Mary, the New Eve, one is unable to justify the union of God and man in the person of Christ considering His perfection. I've heard all kinds of theories, the bubble-boy theory, the surrogate mother theory - both in and outside the womb, the man becomes god theory, or conversely god puts on flesh of man like a suit of clothes. In all these theories none take us from the incarnation to the sacrifice of the perfect Lamb of God without making Jesus Christ a sinner.

So we are left with the TRUTH, Mary is the Ever Virgin Mother of God, who never knew original sin or actual sin - this is how the will of God acted. How does the Logos, the Wisdom of God, made flesh to dwell amongst us. [John 1:14]? You've had since 1520 to figure an alternative to the Catholic truth, times up.

JoeT

 

[Walpole]

I would say the same for you. It's as if you've shut your brain off and are allowing some other authority to tell you what is means.

Nice ad hominem.

Wow, this is some serious hermeneutical backflipping. The waters of the flood (do you even believe in the historical worldwide flood?) are symbolic of the waters of baptism. That makes perfect sense unless you somehow believe that Noah and family were saved by the flood??? Surely you don't believe this? That the Flood waters saved Noah?

Water in salvation history brings both death and life. It represents the destruction of the old (former ways) and recreates something new. The waters of the deluge washed the sinners away, and through it something new was created. Thus St. Peter tells us Noah and the other seven were saved through water.

St. Paul tells us Moses and the Israelites were baptized "...in the cloud and in the sea" (cf. 1 Cor 10:2). As with the deluge, water brought forth death and life. What the Jews call the miracle of the parting of the Sea, St. Paul calls a baptism. This is a type of Christian baptism, with the cloud representing the spirit and the sea representing the living waters of baptism.

Then by extension you also should not believe that the symbolical waters of baptism save the sinner, but rather symbolize the death burial and resurrection that saved them.

In Christianity, matter matters. Hence the waters of baptism are not symbolic, but actual living water...

---> "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Mt. 28:19)

In the above instruction on administering baptism, when is this formula ever recited sans water?

In case you're still confused, God saved Noah from physical death through the Ark, and God saves us from spiritual death by grace through faith in Christ.

I am not confused, for St. Peter is clear God saved Noah and the seven members of his family through water, and through the waters of baptism we too are saved. (cf. 1 Peter 3:20-21)

Not the baptism that saves. John the Baptist said Christ would come later and baptize with the Spirit. The thief on the Cross was never baptized by water, but we was baptized by the Spirit and saved.

St. Peter is clear: "...baptism that now saves you."

Baptism is efficacious because of Christ.

You're confusing the symbol with the reality behind it.

If that is the case, then baptism would be the first time in all of Scripture where the figure / type of something surpassed the reality of it.

 

[Calminian]

Nice ad hominem.

How so?

Water in salvation history brings both death and life.

"Water in salvation history..."?

The waters of the deluge washed the sinners away, and through it something new was created. Thus St. Peter tells us Noah and the other seven were saved through water.

Yes, saved through as in brought safely through. Not saved as in by way of. This word is often translated escaped as in the passage below.

Acts 28:4 When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, “This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, the goddess Justice has not allowed him to live.”​

But surely you don't believe Noah was saved by the flood? You certainly believe he was saved by God through the Ark from the flood.

And surely believe the Ark to be a symbol of Christ?

In Christianity, matter matters. Hence the waters of baptism are not symbolic, but actual living water...

Um, no. You've been told this, taught this, indoctrinated into this, but no, that's not what Scripture says.

---> "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Mt. 28:19)

Indeed. And we do, as a symbol of regeneration (the true baptism).

I am not confused, for St. Peter is clear God saved Noah and the seven members of his family through water, and through the waters of baptism we too are saved. (cf. 1 Peter 3:20-21)

You are extremely confused. Peter himself told you "Not the removal of dirt from the flesh" but you refuse to believe him. You trust other authorities to interpret the interpreter who interpreted this for you directly.

St. Peter is clear: "...baptism that now saves you."

"not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God."

I'll just keep reminding you of this in hopes you'll stop trusting in outward symbols.

 

[JoeT]

But even the verse you quote is post fall.

Mary is a "type" of Eve. Thus we call her the New Eve because she is like the original Eve prior to the fall.

JoeT

 

[1689Dave]

Jesus is also said to be born of woman. Many here believe that sin is in the nature of man (it is the flesh that is evil), consequently simply believing a man born of woman Jesus has this fleshy sin - justify how can God and fleshy sin be uniquely and insuperably joined?

I've never seen anyone justify saying Jesus is the union of man and God without the aid of magic while denying the Virgin Mary. Without the Virgin Mary, the New Eve, one is unable to justify the union of God and man in the person of Christ considering His perfection. I've heard all kinds of theories, the bubble-boy theory, the surrogate mother theory - both in and outside the womb, the man becomes god theory, or conversely god puts on flesh of man like a suit of clothes. In all these theories none take us from the incarnation to the sacrifice of the perfect Lamb of God without making Jesus Christ a sinner.

So we are left with the TRUTH, Mary is the Ever Virgin Mother of God, who never knew original sin or actual sin - this is how the will of God acted. How does the Logos, the Wisdom of God, made flesh to dwell amongst us. [John 1:14]? You've had since 1520 to figure an alternative to the Catholic truth, times up.

JoeT

Jesus is God, he cannot sin. It matters not how we wrestle with his birth. God cannot sin.

 

[Calminian]

Mary is a "type" of Eve. Thus we call her the New Eve because she is like the original Eve prior to the fall.

JoeT

Oh, I see. The problem is, Scripture talks about the first and last Adam, but never about the first and last Eve. In fact, Scripture never links the fall to Eve, but rather Adam who was not deceived.

1Tim. 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.​

When you look at the Fall account, you don't see the effect of the fall take place until after Adam eats, and Christ came to replace Adam and become the last Adam.

Mary could not be in this level. She was a sinner who needed a savior. She said so herself,

Luke 1:46 And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,​

You don't rejoice in a savior unless you need saving. You don't need saving unless you're a sinner. Mary would be very anguished by the things you're saying about her.

 

[Walpole]

How so?

Re-read what you wrote.

"Water in salvation history..."?

Yes, throughout salvation history, the use of water is a common theme.

Yes, saved through as in brought safely through. Not saved as in by way of. This word is often translated escaped as in the passage below.

Acts 28:4 When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, “This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, the goddess Justice has not allowed him to live.”​

​

"...to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through (διά) water..." (1 Peter 3:20, NIV, which you quoted)

διά = through / by / by means of

Source

But surely you don't believe Noah was saved by the flood? You certainly believe he was saved by God through the Ark from the flood.

Noah was physically saved by passing through the waters of the deluge. Here again are the words of St. Peter...

"...to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:20-21, NIV, which you quoted)

Notice, the Apostle does not say, "...were saved through the ark", but rather they were saved "through water."

And surely believe the Ark to be a symbol of Christ?

I believe the Ark symbolizes the Church of Christ.

Um, no. You've been told this, taught this, indoctrinated into this, but no, that's not what Scripture says.

Again, your argument would make baptism the first example in all of Scripture where the type / foreshadowing of something surpassed the reality of it.

Was the deluge actual water or just symbolic water?

Indeed. And we do, as a symbol of regeneration (the true baptism).

Believing baptism is just a symbol is something you've been told, taught and indoctrinated into, but not what the Scripture says.

In Christianity, matter...matters.

You are extremely confused. Peter himself told you "Not the removal of dirt from the flesh" but you refuse to believe him. You trust other authorities to interpret the interpreter who interpreted this for you directly.

"not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God."

I'll just keep reminding you of this in hopes you'll stop trusting in outward symbols.

Exactly! Water is the primary means by which we cleanse ourselves. However, as St. Peter says, in the case of baptism, water is not used to cleanse our bodies, but our souls unto salvation.

"...baptism that now saves you..."

 

[Calminian]

"...to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through (διά) water..." (1 Peter 3:20, NIV, which you quoted)

διά = through / by / by means of

Source

Actually the word is diasozo - to bring safely through; to convey in safety, to reach a place or state of safety. (Mounce)

God brought them safely through the water. This is really easy stuff.

Noah was physically saved by passing through the waters of the deluge. Here again are the words of St. Peter...

"...to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:20-21, NIV, which you quoted)

Notice, the Apostle does not say, "...were saved through the ark", but rather they were saved "through water."

Peter indeed says they were saved by the Ark.

1Pet. 3:20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,​

Very strange why you won't accept this. Peter would want you to accept this.

Again, your argument would make baptism the first example in all of Scripture where the type / foreshadowing of something surpassed the reality of it.

The type is the Ark, the reality is Christ. You accept neither.

Was the deluge actual water or just symbolic water?

The Flood was a real global historical event. Do believe this?

Believing baptism is just a symbol is something you've been told....

Indeed, by Peter the interpreter, who needs no interpreter. You've been taught by someone else.

"...baptism that now saves you..."

Yes, the baptism of Christ by the Spirit which the water symbolizes. You're relying on your works with elements you've gathered. I'm relying on Christ.

 

[37818]

Scripture teaches that man disobeyed God. That is the source of our corruption.
It was not man obtaining the knowledge of good and evil. I was man rebelling against God's command.
Hast God not said...?
Adam rebelled. Adam disobeyed.
Now, skip to the new Adam and see his temptation in Luke 4. The same test was given.
Hast God not said...?
Jesus obeyed. He did not sin. This is precisely why the Second Adam is our Redeemer. He was without sin, yet the sin of the Elect was laid upon him and God's wrath toward sin was brought with full force upon him. By his stripes we were healed.
That is Amazing Grace. May we be humbled by what God has done on our behalf.

Jesus did not sin because the knowledge of good and evil was His knowledge to begin with (Genesis 3:22; Mark 10:18).

Now to the topic of this thread, Genesis 3:15, ". . . And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. . . ." Galatains 4:4, ". . . when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, . . ." And 1 John 3;5, ". . . ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. . . ." 1 John 3:8, ". . . For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. . . ."