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

[utilyan]

Read the entire passage in 1 Corinthians 7. Your claim is twisted.

1 Corinthians 7:17-40 Only let each person lead the lifethat the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God. Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better. A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

A surrogate mother conceives.

The placenta attatches to her womb. Otherwise the child would die of starvation.

In my opinion (and that is all it is) Jesus had no dna from Mary.

So your understanding of conception is the placenta attaches to her womb?


"no dna from Mary."

SO you are saying Mary is not Jesus' mother?

 

[Particular]

Time for another Bible lesson . . .

The Kingdom of Heaven is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom (or, vice versa). We can see this from the references to Isaiah 22:20-22 when Jesus appointed Peter as the bearer of the “keys to the kingdom” (Matt. 16:18-19).

In the Davidic Kingdom, the wife of the King was NOT the Queen – but rather, his MOTHER was elevated to that station. The title Gebirah, meaning “Great Lady” or “Queen Mother” was a royal title and an office which was bestowed upon the mothers of the Kings of Israel but only to those in the line of David.

Jesus Christ is the heir of David. He is the fulfillment of the covenant promises made to David in 2 Samuel 7:16; 23:5, and repeated to Mary in Luke 1:26-36. Mary’s son rules from the Kingdom of the heavenly Jerusalem. It is fitting that His mother should enjoy the same role that other Davidic Queen Mothers enjoyed, that is the royal office of the heavenly Gebirah.

NT fulfillments are ALWAYS more glorious and perfect than their OT types. – without exception.

The Kingdom of Heaven comes far before David.
Second, David's Kingdom is not a type of God's Kingdom. It is a covenantal blessing from God to David's line. It is fulfilled in Jesus. We agree.
Third, you are pulling Mary's role out of thin air. Never does the Bible claim or imply what you are asserting. Never. That should be a massive red flag to you, but my bet is that you persist in that foolishness anyway.

 

[MarysSon]

Nice gymnastics routine. Yet, you avoid the verses presented to you.

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

It seems that your church dogma trumps the Bible...as always.

No – I addressed those verses by educating you about the word “Adelphos”.

ONE more time:

Adelphos (brother) is used in place of brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), relative, kinship, same tribe,neighbor, fellow believer, a fellow countryman, etc. As a matter of fact, iin the NT, it is used FAR less for uterine brother than many of its other uses.

Cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling:
41 12%
Cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling:
47 14%
Cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does not refer to a family sibling:
256 74%
Total occurrences of "Adelphos" and “Adelphe":
344 100%

Face it – the verses YOU provided were already shot down by the examples of the women at the foot of the cross . . .

 

[Particular]

So your understanding of conception is the placenta attaches to her womb?


"no dna from Mary."

SO you are saying Mary is not Jesus' mother?

I'm saying God is Jesus father and Mary hosted Jesus as her earthly son for 33 years. But, she had no dna connected or merged into Jesus.
In other words...God didn't need and didn't use her egg to place himself in her womb.

 

[MarysSon]

The Kingdom of Heaven comes far before David.
Second, David's Kingdom is not a type of God's Kingdom. It is a covenantal blessing from God to David's line. It is fulfilled in Jesus. We agree.
Third, you are pulling Mary's role out of thin air. Never does the Bible claim or imply what you are asserting. Never. That should be a massive red flag to you, but my bet is that you persist in that foolishness anyway.

WRONG again.

First of all – I already cleared up the point about the Davidic Kingdom being modeled after the Heavenly Kingdom. Go back and R*E*A*D . . .

Secondly – Mary’s role is NOT pulled out of thin air. It is as plain as the nose ono your face. Unfortunately, you refuse to see type and fulfillment unless your pastor tells you to.
Here is a BIBLICAL example of the Queen Mother . . .

1 Kings 2:19-20
So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him about Adonijah; the king got up to meet her and bowed before her; he then sat down on his throne; a seat was brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down on his right.

“There is one small favor I would ask of you,” she said. “Do not refuse me.” “Ask it, my mother,” the king said to her, “for I will not refuse you.”

Just as with the Davidic Kingdom, as Jesus is the King, Mary is the Queen Mother.
NT fulfillments are ALWAYS more glorious and perfect than their OT types – WITHOUT exception . . .

 

[MarysSon]

I'm saying God is Jesus father and Mary hosted Jesus as her earthly son for 33 years. But, she had no dna connected or merged into Jesus.
In other words...God didn't need and didn't use her egg to place himself in her womb.

Can you tell me when this doctrine was invented? Because NONE of your Protestant Fathers held to this fallacy. They ALL taught that Mary was the Mother of GOD:

Martin Luther:
"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."

"St. Paul says 'God sent his Son born of a woman, ' These words which I hold for true, really sustain quite firmly that Mary is the Mother of God."
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol. 7, pg 592)
"This article of faith- that Mary is the Mother of God- is present in the Church from the beginning and is not a new creation of the council but the presentation of the Gospel and the Scriptures."
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol. 7, pg 572)

"It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol. 24, pg107)

John Calvin
It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God.
(Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35)

John Wycliffe
"It seems to me impossible that we should obtain the reward of Heaven without the help of Mary. There is no sex or age, no rank or position, of anyone in the whole human race, which has no need to call for the help of the Holy Virgin." [Sermon on Mary]

Ulrich Zwingl
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God".

"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow". [The Works of Zwingli, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905].

Heinrich Bullinger, Ulrich Zwingli’s successor
"Nestorius, the heretic, recognized two natures in Christ, and he understood them as being TWO PERSONS. Indeed he taught that the Word had not been united in ONE PERSON with the flesh, but had only been its habitation in the flesh: that is why he would not admit that the Blessed Virgin Mary was called “Theotokos” or “Mother of God.”

Charles Drelincourt, the French Reformed pastor, 1633
"On account of this close and unaccountable union (of the natures of Christ), what belonged to one of those natures can be attributed generally to the PERSON. Hence just as the Apostle, St. Paul, said that the Jews crucified the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2)...we find no difficulty in saying with the Ancients, that the VIRGIN MARY IS THE MOTHER OF GOD; for he whom she bore is GOD above all else, eternally blest (Rom 9)."

When did you all change this belief??

 

[Particular]

WRONG again.

First of all – I already cleared up the point about the Davidic Kingdom being modeled after the Heavenly Kingdom. Go back and R*E*A*D . . .

Secondly – Mary’s role is NOT pulled out of thin air. It is as plain as the nose ono your face. Unfortunately, you refuse to see type and fulfillment unless your pastor tells you to.
Here is a BIBLICAL example of the Queen Mother . . .

1 Kings 2:19-20
So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him about Adonijah; the king got up to meet her and bowed before her; he then sat down on his throne; a seat was brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down on his right.

“There is one small favor I would ask of you,” she said. “Do not refuse me.” “Ask it, my mother,” the king said to her, “for I will not refuse you.”

Just as with the Davidic Kingdom, as Jesus is the King, Mary is the Queen Mother.
NT fulfillments are ALWAYS more glorious and perfect than their OT types – WITHOUT exception . . .

You are doing gymnastics with the Bible and attempting to make connections where there is none. Anyone can see your use of Bathsheba is a leaping of the shark into ludicrousy.
Your desperation to hold on to a horrific false teaching is clear.

 

[Particular]

Can you tell me when this doctrine was invented? Because NONE of your Protestant Fathers held to this fallacy. They ALL taught that Mary was the Mother of GOD:

Martin Luther:
"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."

"St. Paul says 'God sent his Son born of a woman, ' These words which I hold for true, really sustain quite firmly that Mary is the Mother of God."
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol. 7, pg 592)
"This article of faith- that Mary is the Mother of God- is present in the Church from the beginning and is not a new creation of the council but the presentation of the Gospel and the Scriptures."
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol. 7, pg 572)

"It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol. 24, pg107)

John Calvin
It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God.
(Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35)

John Wycliffe
"It seems to me impossible that we should obtain the reward of Heaven without the help of Mary. There is no sex or age, no rank or position, of anyone in the whole human race, which has no need to call for the help of the Holy Virgin." [Sermon on Mary]

Ulrich Zwingl
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God".

"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow". [The Works of Zwingli, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905].

Heinrich Bullinger, Ulrich Zwingli’s successor
"Nestorius, the heretic, recognized two natures in Christ, and he understood them as being TWO PERSONS. Indeed he taught that the Word had not been united in ONE PERSON with the flesh, but had only been its habitation in the flesh: that is why he would not admit that the Blessed Virgin Mary was called “Theotokos” or “Mother of God.”

Charles Drelincourt, the French Reformed pastor, 1633
"On account of this close and unaccountable union (of the natures of Christ), what belonged to one of those natures can be attributed generally to the PERSON. Hence just as the Apostle, St. Paul, said that the Jews crucified the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2)...we find no difficulty in saying with the Ancients, that the VIRGIN MARY IS THE MOTHER OF GOD; for he whom she bore is GOD above all else, eternally blest (Rom 9)."

When did you all change this belief??

I note that not one of the quotes declares that Mary's genetic code is in Jesus. All that is declared is that Mary is the mother of Jesus. I agree. Mary is the mother of Jesus. But, Jesus is not genetically tied to Mary, just as Adam is not genetically tied to anyone before him.
God is amazing, isn't he.

 

[Walpole]

I'm saying God is Jesus father and Mary hosted Jesus as her earthly son for 33 years. But, she had no dna connected or merged into Jesus.
In other words...God didn't need and didn't use her egg to place himself in her womb.

And I thought Valentinianism was long since gone!

So you believe Mary was nothing but a pipe (or teleporter to modernize Valentinus' position) by which God used to slip down from heaven into His creation?

 

[Walpole]

I note that not one of the quotes declares that Mary's genetic code is in Jesus. All that is declared is that Mary is the mother of Jesus. I agree. Mary is the mother of Jesus. But, Jesus is not genetically tied to Mary, just as Adam is not genetically tied to anyone before him.
God is amazing, isn't he.

From whom did Jesus receive His human nature?

 

[MarysSon]

You are doing gymnastics with the Bible and attempting to make connections where there is none. Anyone can see your use of Bathsheba is a leaping of the shark into ludicrousy.
Your desperation to hold on to a horrific false teaching is clear.

And, as I stated before – your refusal to open your eyes to the clear type and fulfillment of Scripture is based on the fact that your Protestant Pastor won’t let you.
It’s HIS way or the highway until you leave and transfer to the next denomination . . .

 

[Particular]

No – I addressed those verses by educating you about the word “Adelphos”.

ONE more time:

Adelphos (brother) is used in place of brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), relative, kinship, same tribe,neighbor, fellow believer, a fellow countryman, etc. As a matter of fact, iin the NT, it is used FAR less for uterine brother than many of its other uses.

Cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling:
41 12%
Cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling:
47 14%
Cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does not refer to a family sibling:
256 74%
Total occurrences of "Adelphos" and “Adelphe":
344 100%

Face it – the verses YOU provided were already shot down by the examples of the women at the foot of the cross . . .

Jump the shark for me one more time.

 

[Particular]

From whom did Jesus receive His human nature?

From God...just like Adam.
This isn't difficult. Why do you limit God?

 

[Particular]

And, as I stated before – your refusal to open your eyes to the clear type and fulfillment of Scripture is based on the fact that your Protestant Pastor won’t let you.
It’s HIS way or the highway until you leave and transfer to the next denomination . . .

Your typology is horrid. My eyes are wide open as I see you abuse the Bible to prop up your church dogma.

 

[Walpole]

". . . when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: . . . " -- 1 Peter 3:20-21.

Respectfully two questions. First, how was Noah and family "saved through water?" Second, why go to the trouble of the exclution, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God?"

First, 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 Noah and his family were saved from sin through the waters of the deluge.

Second, St. Peter draws the parallel between the saving waters of the deluge for Noah and that of the saving waters of baptism for you and I. However, he goes through the trouble of the exclusion, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God" to demonstrate the effects of the waters of baptism act not on the exterior (washing the flesh), but rather interiorly, on the conscience and soul of man.

 

[Walpole]

From God...just like Adam.
This isn't difficult. Why do you limit God?

So God had body suit or closet of flesh in heaven that he simply had Jesus slip on and then used Mary to be the transporter by which He passed into creation?

I'm trying to figure out if this is a joke or if you are serious and actually believe this...


FYI, the incarnation, by definition, requires a mother.

 

[Particular]

So God had body suit or closet of flesh in heaven that he simply had Jesus slip on and then used Mary to be the transporter by which He passed into creation?

I'm trying to figure out if this is a joke or if you are serious and actually believe this...


FYI, the incarnation, by definition, requires a mother.

Ask God how he became human.
Here's what God shares with us.

Philippians 2:5-8 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Do you see anything in those verses about Mary and the need for her egg in order for God to become man?

Mary is the mother of Jesus. She just has no genetic connection to Jesus. Why does this cause you such aynxt?

 

[MarysSon]

Jump the shark for me one more time.

Now there's an intelligent and well-researched response.
Can anybody say "denial"??

Good grief . . .

 

[Particular]

Now there's an intelligent and well-researched response.
Can anybody say "denial"??

Good grief . . .

Denial. Why do you deny that Mary and Joseph had a healthy sex life and had many children? Odd how you keep denying, even when the Bible identifies the fact for you.
Now, jump the shark for us one more time.

 

[MarysSon]

Denial. Why do you deny that Mary and Joseph had a healthy sex life and had many children? Odd how you keep denying, even when the Bible identifies the fact for you.
Now, jump the shark for us one more time.

Really?
Show me where the Bible makes this claim
Chapter and Verse, please . . .

I'll make it easy for you:
Show me ANY Early Churh writing that makes this claim.

Happy hunting . . .