Surrogacy in India

[standingfirminChrist]

Rent-a-womb



Reuters -- In India, the egg is usually from the intended mother or a donor to reduce chances of the surrogate developing an emotional attachment to the baby, doctors say.
Both parties sign a contract under which the couple pays for the surrogate's services and her medical care and the latter renounces her right to the baby, precluding chances of a possible custody battle later.
________________________________________


The fact that women in Anand are getting pregnant without the use of their own egg proves that Mary's conception did not have to involve her contributing an egg for Jesus to be conceived in her womb.

Neither egg, nor sperm cell was used. That 'holy thing' was prepared by God and placed in Mary's womb and she conceived.

 

[BobRyan]

Surrogates are documented in the US for many years - not just India. But in that case we do not call the child "the son" of some family member in the Surrogates lineage.

Christ on the other hand is called "the Son of David" - he is also called "the Son of man".

None of this would be true if in fact he had no biological connection at all to human lineage nor humanity.

The Angels are not called "the son of Angel" but "the sons of God" because they are in fact made by God directly even though as a species - ontologically they are "Angels". This would be the case with Christ (as with Adam) - no possibility of calling him "son of man" or "son of David" -- only "son of God" though made ontologically as "human" via the incarnation. (IF in fact your surrogate theory for incarnation were the exact biological mechanism that is being conveyed in scripture).

Remember the biological structures are the "engineering" for the body - not the essence of the soul.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Christ is called the "son of man" not because His flesh and DNA was of Mary, but rather because He was born to Mary.

She was surrogate mother to the Son of God. She did not contribute her egg.

 

[annsni]

That's a pretty laughable proof that Mary didn't have to provide her egg for Jesus' body. Of course she didn't have to provide an egg for Jesus' body - Jesus didn't even need a womb to become a person! But in order to be of the seed of David and of the seed of a woman, He did have to use Mary's egg to provide the link to David and a woman - and to be proved as fully human.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Seed only referred to being born in the family. He was born into the family.

God made the first Adam without the need of a woman's egg. God created the second Adam without the woman's egg as well.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

SFIC, you sure assert certainty about debatable positions.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I assert what the Spirit has revealed to me as fact.

 

[annsni]

Seed only referred to being born in the family. He was born into the family.

God made the first Adam without the need of a woman's egg. God created the second Adam without the woman's egg as well.

God created the first Adam out of existing material. He did the same with the second.

 

[DHK]

I assert what the Spirit has revealed to me as fact.

That position is called Gnosticism. John fought against that heresy in his first epistle. It is claiming to know knowledge (Gk, gnosis) apart from the Word of God, perhaps claiming it to be from the Spirit. It is a higher knowledge that no one else has. You have this knowledge that has been revealed to you, and yet has not been revealed to any one else throughout the centuries? That is gnosticism.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

You sure do like to use that word 'heresy' an awful lot. wonder if you accuse your pastor of heresy as well? I am sure you don't agree with everything he teaches.

It seems you think you have all the answers and God doesn't speak to anyone else.

Your claiming that Mary's egg was used is apart from the Word of God. The Bible nowhere says her egg was used.

 

[DHK]

You sure do like to use that word 'heresy' an awful lot. wonder if you accuse your pastor of heresy as well? I am sure you don't agree with everything he teaches.

No, in fact I don't like to use the word but find that in certain situations it becomes necessary. Think about it. Even Morris, who believes in a position that is similar to you would never state something that you just did. We all have our opinions, and some of us hold to them fairly strongly--to the point where we call them convictions. But there are some things that are debatable; otherwise the purpose of this forum would be fruitful.

Let me give you an example using a different subject.
One poster says: The Holy Spirit told me that Calvinism is the one true doctrine, and all those who don't believe in Calvinism are wrong.
Another poster says, The Holy Spirit spoke to me and showed me that Calvinism is wrong, and those that believe in it are going to Hell!
Does the Holy Spirit contradict Himself?

There is a Cal/Arm debate going on not because either position is right or wrong, and not because the Holy Spirit has revealed one side or the other side to any one person; but because of their own personal study and the conclusions that they have arrived at because of that study, and the influence of the study of others around them.

Just an observation: It doesn't seem that you are doing much objective study on your own, but rather taking the word of just one person--perhaps Morris. Maybe you need to consult more than just one or two commentaries and find out what the majority of evangelicals believe on this subject and why.

It seems you think you have all the answers and God doesn't speak to anyone else.

I asked you a similar question in the thread now closed.
Why are you, of all the ones posting, the only person taking the position that you do. It is not me that you are arguing with, but Ann, TCGreek, et. al.

Your claiming that Mary's egg was used is apart from the Word of God. The Bible nowhere says her egg was used.

The Bible does not say that her egg was not used.
To say that her egg was not used is to deny the humanity of Christ, and to deny specific definitions of words such as "conceive," in the Word of God. One needs to be careful about changing or adding to the Word of God.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

In the natural, the second man was Cain, not Jesus.

Christ is being compared to the first man... Adam. Adam was not born, but rather, he was formed

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Hebrews 10:5 declares that the body that Jesus had while on this earth was also formed by God

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Jesus' body was prepared (formed) in Mary's womb. He indeed was the second Adam whose body was formed by God.

Christ was made in the same fashion as the first Adam... formed by God's hands and not by a woman's egg or DNA.

 

[annsni]

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

In the natural, the second man was Cain, not Jesus.

Christ is being compared to the first man... Adam. Adam was not born, but rather, he was formed

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Hebrews 10:5 declares that the body that Jesus had while on this earth was also formed by God

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Jesus' body was prepared (formed) in Mary's womb. He indeed was the second Adam whose body was formed by God.

Christ was made in the same fashion as the first Adam... formed by God's hands and not by a woman's egg or DNA.

Scripture supports that ALL things are formed by God - Adam, man, the body for the Son, the animals of the earth, the nation of Israel. However, since He said that He would form the Messiah of the seed of David and of the seed of a woman (seed being more than just a child mothered by a surrogate but of a physical lineage), it is clear that Scripture supports the view that Jesus was the physical child of Mary - fully human and the Son of God - fully Divine. There is not one bit of evidence that Jesus was not the physical child of Mary other than your assertion that God could not do that. That just doesn't do it.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Scripture does not support the egg of Mary being used no matter how one claims it does.

Jesus Christ, the Lord from Heaven, was the second Adam. Formed by the Father. His body was not the product of Mary's egg. If it were, then Scripture would be lying when it states that He was without mother or father. Hebrews 7.

Mary was only a surrogate, or Hebrews 7 is a lie.

 

[DHK]

Christ was made in the same fashion as the first Adam... formed by God's hands and not by a woman's egg or DNA.

This statement says that Christ is a created being, like Adam was a created being (in the same fashion as the first Adam).
The Bible does not teach that Christ was a created being.
The J.W.'s teach that Christ was a created being, but not the Bible.

 

[annsni]

Scripture does not support the egg of Mary being used no matter how one claims it does.

Jesus Christ, the Lord from Heaven, was the second Adam. Formed by the Father. His body was not the product of Mary's egg. If it were, then Scripture would be lying when it states that He was without mother or father. Hebrews 7.

Mary was only a surrogate, or Hebrews 7 is a lie.

If that is so, then all of Scripture is a lie because Jesus DOES have a father - the heavenly Father.

Here are some commentaries on this passage:

Matthew Henry: "He was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, v. 3. This must not be understood according to the letter; but the scripture has chosen to set him forth as an extraordinary person, without giving us his genealogy, that he might be a fitter type of Christ, who as man was without father, as God without mother; whose priesthood is without descent, did not descend to him from another, nor from him to another, but is personal and perpetual."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown: " Without father, &c.--explained by "without genealogy" (so the Greek is for "without descent); compare Hbr 7:6 , that is, his genealogy is not known, whereas a Levitical priest could not dispense with the proof of his descent. "

Charles Spurgeon: ""Consider how great this man was" as to the singularity of his person, "without father, without mother, without descent": that is to say, we know nothing as to his birth, his origin, or his history. Even this explanation hardly answers to the words, especially when it is added, "Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." So mysterious is Melchizedek that many deeply-taught expositors think that he was veritably an appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. They are inclined to believe that he was not a king of some city in Canaan, as the most of us suppose, but that he was a manifestation of the Son of God, such as were the angels that appeared to Abraham on the plains of Mamre, and that divine being who appeared to Joshua by Jericho, and to the three holy ones in the furnace. At any rate, you may well consider how great this man was when you observe how veiled in cloud is everything about his coming and going—veiled because intended to impress us with the depth of the sacred meanings which were shadowed forth in him. How much more shall this be said of him of whom we ask—

"Thy generation who can tell,
Or count the number of thy years?"

 

[standingfirminChrist]

This statement says that Christ is a created being, like Adam was a created being (in the same fashion as the first Adam).
The Bible does not teach that Christ was a created being.
The J.W.'s teach that Christ was a created being, but not the Bible.

Christ's human body was formed... just as the Word of God says it was... the second man.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

If that is so, then all of Scripture is a lie because Jesus DOES have a father - the heavenly Father.

Here are some commentaries on this passage:

Matthew Henry: "He was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, v. 3. This must not be understood according to the letter; but the scripture has chosen to set him forth as an extraordinary person, without giving us his genealogy, that he might be a fitter type of Christ, who as man was without father, as God without mother; whose priesthood is without descent, did not descend to him from another, nor from him to another, but is personal and perpetual."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown: " Without father, &c.--explained by "without genealogy" (so the Greek is for "without descent); compare Hbr 7:6 , that is, his genealogy is not known, whereas a Levitical priest could not dispense with the proof of his descent. "

Charles Spurgeon: ""Consider how great this man was" as to the singularity of his person, "without father, without mother, without descent": that is to say, we know nothing as to his birth, his origin, or his history. Even this explanation hardly answers to the words, especially when it is added, "Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." So mysterious is Melchizedek that many deeply-taught expositors think that he was veritably an appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. They are inclined to believe that he was not a king of some city in Canaan, as the most of us suppose, but that he was a manifestation of the Son of God, such as were the angels that appeared to Abraham on the plains of Mamre, and that divine being who appeared to Joshua by Jericho, and to the three holy ones in the furnace. At any rate, you may well consider how great this man was when you observe how veiled in cloud is everything about his coming and going—veiled because intended to impress us with the depth of the sacred meanings which were shadowed forth in him. How much more shall this be said of him of whom we ask—

"Thy generation who can tell,
Or count the number of thy years?"

without mother, without father... notice the little 'f'. Jesus did not have a biological, earthly father. Nor did He have a biological, earthly mother. Else Hebrews is a lie.

 

[DHK]

Christ's human body was formed... just as the Word of God says it was... the second man.

That is not what Scripture says. I have outlined already for you the teaching of Hebrews 10--the contrast of the Levitical sacrificial system to the one sacrifice--Christ, a Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. You pull that verse out of context and build a doctrine out of it. That is not rightly dividing the word of truth.

The word "begotten" in reference to Christ is used many times over. Christ was begotten, not created. He is the only begotten Son of God. His embryo was not sent in a spaceship by God to Mary's womb, or in any way "created" outside of it. He is not a created being. Nor was his humanity "cut short" at the beginning of his life. He was begotten not created. The word formed means created.
Christ wasn't created.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

There you go with that spaceship thing again. I am beginning to think you believe that is what happened and are having a hard time convincing yourself it was not a spaceship.

I certainly never came up with such nonsense.

Christ was begotten of the Father. Hebrews declares He is without mother or father.

Surrogacy in India proves that a woman can conceive without her egg even being used in the conception.

Scripture declares that to be the case with Mary... believe it, or not.