The Birth and Nature of Christ Part#2

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: What we have witnessed so far is a similar instance that happened to Pelagius and Augustine. Pelagius never denied the grace of God in the least, but he did not believe that grace was such as Augustine defined and used it and therefore Augustine in the seat of power condemned Pelagius for heresy. Here, I have clearly stated my belief in the virgin birth as well as the implantation of the seed into Mary via the Holy Spirit, and DHK has denied that I believe what I say I believe and has gone as far as to directly call me a heretic for denying the virgin birth, saying that ones virginity must of necessity be lost if the sperm of man is used by the Holy Spirit. He has offered absolutely no factual evidence of this claim whatsoever. To start this thread I will repost his comments and my post which went unanswered on another thread. I would invite all to participate in their ideas on this topic related to the conception and birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, born of a virgin and conceived by the Holy Spirit.
Quote:

DHK: If the human sperm of Joseph were used (in any way) then Mary would not be a virgin. End of story. When a man's sperm fertilzes a woman's egg the woman is not a virgin. These truths are self-evident. The process doesn't matter………..

You admit she conceived. That means an egg was fertilized. Even if it was by the Holy Spirit miraculously--an egg was fertilized. As you said "she conceived." You cannot get around it.

HP: You have presented no end to the story. Your ideas raise far more questions than you believe they answer.

You seem to hold firmly that Mary’s egg was used. You also hold firmly to the biblical notion that the Holy Spirit did the conceiving. What you have not did is show us one scintilla of evidence that the Holy Spirit did not use sperm to fertilize the egg nor why the Holy Spirit could not have used the egg. If the Holy Spirit had a direct word for this board I believe I would know of one possible message the Spirit would have for us today. I believe it would go something like this. “I am God and can fertilize the egg of Mary in any way I see fit. No man has the right to tell Me what I can and cannot use, sperm or no sperm. Who do you think you are telling God what He can and cannot do or use to impregnate the virgin Mary? By the way, I can do it any way I so desire and Mary will still be a virgin when I am finished, egg or no egg, sperm or no sperm.”

The idea you seem bent on that if sperm is used it must in fact declare the loss of Mary’s virginity so limits an Infinite God that it is plainly not a viable argument in the least.

 

[DHK]

HP: What we have witnessed so far is a similar instance that happened to Pelagius and Augustine. Pelagius never denied the grace of God in the least, but he did not believe that grace was such as Augustine defined and used it and therefore Augustine in the seat of power condemned Pelagius for heresy. Here, I have clearly stated my belief in the virgin birth as well as the implantation of the seed into Mary via the Holy Spirit, and DHK has denied that I believe what I say I believe and has gone as far as to directly call me a heretic for denying the virgin birth, saying that ones virginity must of necessity be lost if the sperm of man is used by the Holy Spirit. He has offered absolutely no factual evidence of this claim whatsoever. To start this thread I will repost his comments and my post which went unanswered on another thread. I would invite all to participate in their ideas on this topic related to the conception and birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, born of a virgin and conceived by the Holy Spirit.
Quote:



HP: You have presented no end to the story. Your ideas raise far more questions than you believe they answer.

You seem to hold firmly that Mary’s egg was used. You also hold firmly to the biblical notion that the Holy Spirit did the conceiving. What you have not did is show us one scintilla of evidence that the Holy Spirit did not use sperm to fertilize the egg nor why the Holy Spirit could not have used the egg.

You are paraphrasing what I did not say.
1. Conception of a necessity involves the fertilization of a woman's egg. That is point number one.
Under normal circumstances it would involve a human sperm, but this was not a normal circumstance. The Bible specifically says that He "was conceived by the Holy Spirit." A spirit has no sperm, no physical shape whatsoever. Thus the act of conception was entirely a supernatural act. Since the Word of God states "a virgin shall conceive," we must by faith take God at his Word and accept that she did which means that her egg was fertilized. How? By the Holy Spirit. By what means did the Holy Spirit use--we are not told.

To read into the Scripture and say it was Joseph's sperm is unbiblical. You cannot state something that the Bible does not state. Your argument is not only conjecture, but leads to heresy.

2. It denies the deity of Christ and makes Christ only a man. If it is simply the egg of man and the sperm of Joseph (no matter what way they came together) then Christ is just a man, and He has no deity whatsoever. That is the heresy involved. Christ is more than man. He is God come in the flesh. Thus your position is heretical. On that basis is it heresy. It is your responsibility to demonstrate that you have Biblical proof to back your position that Joseph's sperm was used. Give me chapter and verse. I don't want: what if's, God is able, Why not, God can do anything, etc. That is all speculative. Tell me what the Bible says. Back up your assertions with the Word of God, or I wil continue to say, on the grounds of what the Bible says that you believe in heresy, concluding that Christ is only a man and not God. There was nothing divine about Joseph's sperm!

The Bible distinctly says that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not Joseph's sperm, and not the Holy Spirit using Joseph's sperm. Both positions are heresy. Both positions lead to Christ being only a man, and deny his deity.

If the Holy Spirit had a direct word for this board I believe I would know of one possible message the Spirit would have for us today. I believe it would go something like this. “I am God and can fertilize the egg of Mary in any way I see fit. No man has the right to tell Me what I can and cannot use, sperm or no sperm. Who do you think you are telling God what He can and cannot do or use to impregnate the virgin Mary? By the way, I can do it any way I so desire and Mary will still be a virgin when I am finished, egg or no egg, sperm or no sperm.”

So why are you telling God that He used Joseph's sperm. Practice what you preach.
God doesn't go against His Word.
God doesn't go against His nature.
God doesn't go against His own prophecies or promises.

By being born of a virgin; by a virgin conceiving; that is her egg being fertilized, he is fulfilling prophecy that was foretold 700 years before Christ was even born. God doesn't go against His Word and fulfills the promises that He has made.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Are you God that you should tell him what to do?

The idea you seem bent on that if sperm is used it must in fact declare the loss of Mary’s virginity so limits an Infinite God that it is plainly not a viable argument in the least.

You are not thinking straight. A sperm and an egg, when united together produce a human, and that is all. If that is what happened it would deny the deity of Christ. What the Holy Spirit did with Mary's egg we don't know, and some things are better off left as a mystery. You can ask the Lord when you get to heaven.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK:
1. Conception of a necessity involves the fertilization of a woman's egg. That is point number one.
Under normal circumstances it would involve a human sperm, but this was not a normal circumstance.

HP: There is no indication that the conception did not involve both egg and sperm. The clear evidence that is shown to us that made this conception super natural was that no man was involved, but rather the Holy Spirit, and that Mary remained a virgin through the process. Scripture is silent on egg or no egg, sperm or no sperm, etc. If God can make both egg and sperm, I am certain He can implant either or both within the womb without affecting the virginity of Mary if He so desires.

DHK: The Bible specifically says that He "was conceived by the Holy Spirit." A spirit has no sperm, no physical shape whatsoever.

HP: This was no ordinary spirit DHK, this was the Holy Spirit with a capital ‘S.’ The Holy Spirit is as much God as Christ or God the Father. God can create at will. Everything that exists has been created by God at some point in time. The Spirit may not have sperm but He is the creator of everything in some sense, including the ingredients, the mechanism to make it and the life He puts within it. Again, you limit God. Let the listener know that DHK has found the first thing that God cannot do, create and implant sperm in a virgin.

DHK: Thus the act of conception was entirely a supernatural act. Since the Word of God states "a virgin shall conceive," we must by faith take God at his Word and accept that she did which means that her egg was fertilized. How? By the Holy Spirit. By what means did the Holy Spirit use--we are not told.

HP: Here you insist that it was Mary’s egg. I do not disagree with you, but in this we both are suggesting something that in reality we have no proof of neither does Scripture tell us it is so. Are you going to tell us that God could not have created an egg and implanted it as well? Why do you see the egg as necessary to be human but when it comes to the sperm you say it could not have been used? Oh I know your answer as you have already given it, but it serves to convince only yourself of your own beliefs. It in no way establishes any evidence to support your view. Your drum you are beating holds no more water than the no-eggers drumbeat you criticize.

To make a human, of which the body of Christ possessed, it takes an egg and a sperm if it is subsequent to Adam and genetically tied to the human race. Eggs do not fertilize themselves and sperm does not make eggs. That is God’s plan of creation. It takes both to enact the fertilization which results in the creation of a man. God became a man DHK. He became a man like unto His brethren, made in the likeness of sinful flesh physically tied to the bloodline of Abraham, King David, and his father Joseph as Scripture tells us plainly in no less than two genealogical accounts. Contrary to what you would have us believe, there is a clear distinction between Joseph and Mary, and it is Joseph not Mary that is said to be physically tied to the flesh Jesus possessed while on earth, just as was supposed.

DHK: To read into the Scripture and say it was Joseph's sperm is unbiblical. You cannot state something that the Bible does not state. Your argument is not only conjecture, but leads to heresy.

HP: On the same note we would have to say that our belief in Mary’s egg being used is as well conjecture and it too must lead us both to heresy.

DHK: 2. It denies the deity of Christ and makes Christ only a man. If it is simply the egg of man and the sperm of Joseph (no matter what way they came together) then Christ is just a man, and He has no deity whatsoever.

HP: WHY???? You are great at stating a point but offer not an ounce of evidence other than it is so because you say it. Show us evidence DHK, not simply your idea.

DHK:Christ is more than man. He is God come in the flesh.

HP: Man is more than flesh and blood. I say that God inhabited the Spirit of Christ (capitalized because His Spirit was indeed God) in a manner we do not possess, and in the union of His Spirit was God Incarnate within Him. He walked in the same flesh and blood you and I walk in, created with the same genetic makeup as all men, but His Spirit was one with God, again in a way no other man has been or could be. Conjecture on my part? Absolutely, but at least I am not making God out to be a liar to the Jews as you yourself admit to concerning the physical tie to the seed of Abraham you say did not in actuality exist.

DHK: Thus your position is heretical. On that basis is it heresy.

HP: I hope you are enjoying the freedom you find as a moderator to violate your own rules at will as you do. That is an unfounded personal attack that is completely unwarranted. Have I denied the virgin birth? No. Have I denied the Deity of Christ in any way? No. Not in the least.

Sin does not lie in the flesh and blood of man but rather in the will of man. Sin is not nor can it be transmitted by physical means, and no one is responsible before God for the sins of another. If anything is necessitated, it is not sin. Sin is a voluntary act of the will of man in the formation of intents contrary to known commandments of God.

DHK: It is your responsibility to demonstrate that you have Biblical proof to back your position that Joseph's sperm was used. Give me chapter and verse. I don't want: what if's, God is able, Why not, God can do anything, etc. That is all speculative. Tell me what the Bible says. Back up your assertions with the Word of God, or I wil continue to say, on the grounds of what the Bible says that you believe in heresy, concluding that Christ is only a man and not God. There was nothing divine about Joseph's sperm!

HP: Who said there was? Due to the fact that the physical body of Christ was not created as some third race being Divine, but rather was made human, a little lower than the angels, in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, the sperm would not have to be Divine, just human. Read the plain genealogies we have been discussing DHK. It will inform you clearly that the seed of Joseph was the link of the physical body of Christ that gave Him the legal and natural right to sit on the throne of David as was prophesied.

DHK: Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

HP: Oh yes, but He was a man for a time, made like unto His brethren, in the likeness of sinful flesh, the man Christ Jesus.

DHK: You are not thinking straight. A sperm and an egg, when united together produce a human, and that is all.

HP: Precisely. Human eggs and sperm can only create human flesh. It is God that enhabits the Spirit, and it was God that was Incarnate in the Spirit of Christ although housed in the shell of human flesh for a season.

DHK: some things are better off left as a mystery. You can ask the Lord when you get to heaven.

HP: Some things are better unsaid as well DHK, like calling your brother in the Lord a heretic on the basis of mysteries you as well have some what to learn, as do we all, myself included.

 

[DHK]

HP: Who said there was? Due to the fact that the physical body of Christ was not created as some third race being Divine, but rather was made human, a little lower than the angels, in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, the sperm would not have to be Divine, just human. Read the plain genealogies we have been discussing DHK. It will inform you clearly that the seed of Joseph was the link of the physical body of Christ that gave Him the legal and natural right to sit on the throne of David as was prophesied.

In this matter you err grievously.
The genealogy of Matthew is of Joseph.
The genealogy of Luke is of Mary.
Those facts are well established by almost all theologians.
Face at least this one fact when you further study this out:
Joseph did not have two fathers!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Joseph did not have two fathers!

HP: First, show us where the Genelogy in Luke is Mary’s and not Joseph? It states plainly that it is Joseph’s as well.
Lu 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Show us where it says one word about Mary. Here again rather than to take the Word of God for what it says, you simply insert a 'hope so,' a 'maybe so' or 'I wish it were so' for reasons known to yourself. Could it possibly be the presupposition of OS that you are covering for? Why would you deny the obvious to insert an idea foreign to the text, changing Joseph to Mary?

In order to prove or show any blood line, it was the custom of the Jews to show it through the blood line of the father, not the mother. Can you show us evidence of a clear contrary example to this practice? Do you believe the Jews would not have raised an alarm as to the rightful place Christ had to the throne of David if the early Church said or Scripture was written to effect that his being a rightful heir to the throne of David was due to Mary's lineage as opposed to his father's Joseph's? I certainly believe they would have.

The idea that Joseph indeed had two fathers is not novel with me. That has been common knowledge since the time of the early Church. I will admit that I am not a scholar and have read all the early Christian fathers on this idea, but there are some that have. One of those scholars is the notable author and commentator Albert Barnes. He states that the notion that David indeed had two fathers was the position held by ‘most of the early Christian fathers, and on the whole is the most satisfactory.”(idea) It is also noted that there was ‘NO” difficulty found or alleged by any of the enemies of the early Church concerning the genealogies just as written. Barnes notes that if it were inaccurate, certainly there would have been an outcry by the Jews that obviously read the genealogies and were predisposed to ferret out any and all error that might have proved Christ was not the rightful heir to the throne of David according to either of the the genealogies spoken of concerning and understood by the early Christian fathers as being both Joseph's two fathers. The Jews obviously had at their disposel public records that certainly could have disproved either or both of them but no such opposition to either was mounted.

If you want to talk about pure unadulterated speculation DHK, examine your position of the genealogy stated plainly in Luke to be that of Joseph really meaning it is that of Mary! Offer something to the list other than pure speculation that Joseph could not have had two fathers just as was the position of the early Christian fathers that addressed the issue according to Barnes, and is clearly born out by the genealogies given in Matt. and Luke. Show us some early Christian writers, prior to Augustine, that held to the notion that the genealogy in Luke was that of Mary, or any proof for that matter.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK has stated that if sperm is inserted into the womb that such automatically would destroy one’s virginity. I believe such a view is simply in practical error. I have submitted a post to the Moderators to see if in fact it can be posted and still stay within BB forum rules concerning human sexuality. If allowed I will post it to illustrate the error of DHK's thinking on this matter.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

If you have to ask if it is within BB guidelines, it probably isn't.

 

[Brother Bob]

Most theologians agree that Heli was Joseph's Father -in - Law, therefore being his father by marriage to Mary.


BBob,

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: Most theologians agree that Heli was Joseph's Father -in - Law, therefore being his father by marriage to Mary.

HP: In this I believe most theologians, believing as such, are not in line with early Christian fathers nor are they consistent with the clear wording of the text depicting Joseph as the father of Jesus, although NOT by begetting him personally by natural means. I do not believe anyone, as a Jew, could claim to be a rightfully heir to the throne of David by way of their mothers genealogy. I admit that that is my opinion and could be in error.

The fact remains that Scripture clearly states that it is Joseph through which the seed and heir to the throne of David is passed, not Mary.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let me state something here that is in OPPOSITION to the theory I have raised. I have made the comment that the genealogical accounts are indeed bloodlines, have I not? Well, that is true in one account and seemingly not entirely the case in the other. Anyone can call me on the carpet on this one, for if in fact Heli was only the legal father of Joseph and not His natural father, there would be a break in the bloodline on his account. Therefore I should have noted this exception in the lineage more carefully as NOT being a blood connection in the account of Luke concerning Heli but rather a legal one.

The question could be raised, although I believe others have established a clear answer in the affirmative, whether or not Joseph’s connection to Heli would warrant Joseph as being a rightful heir to the throne of David based on the break in the bloodline. If there was any reason whatsoever to believe that the genealogy in Luke was that of Mary, this would be the reason. I still believe that it would be outside of Jewish practice to claim heir through Mary, and as such would have been outright rejected by the Jews as a legal right to the throne of David.

When speaking of the geneological bloodlines given in Luke, I should be more careful in the future to note the break with the Heli-Joseph connection.

 

[Brother Bob]

I believe that Joseph was the legal father of Jesus, but not the blood father.


There is also the fact that if we trace the lineage of Joseph back to his forefathers we will find that his line was excluded from the house of David due to a curse since the time of Jaconiah.

BBob,

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: There is also the fact that if we trace the lineage of Joseph back to his forefathers we will find that his line was excluded from the house of David due to a curse since the time of Jaconiah.

HP: DHK and others have raised that issue as well, but I do not believe this to be the case. There is more than one scenario that would clearly eliminate the ‘Jeconiah curse factor.’ It has been a while since I read carefully about it, and today I am going to be hard pressed for time to do so. I am glad you brought up the issue and will try and address it soon.

 

[DHK]

HP: DHK and others have raised that issue as well, but I do not believe this to be the case. There is more than one scenario that would clearly eliminate the ‘Jeconiah curse factor.’ It has been a while since I read carefully about it, and today I am going to be hard pressed for time to do so. I am glad you brought up the issue and will try and address it soon.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has this to say about the genealogy of Christ:

The New Testament gives us the genealogy of but one person, that of our Saviour. This is given because it was important to prove that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies spoken of him. Only as the son and heir of David should he be the Messiah. The following propositions will explain the true construction of these genealogies:--

1. They are both the genealogies of Joseph, i.e. of Jesus Christ as the reputed and legal son of Joseph and Mary.

2. The genealogy of St. Matthew is Joseph's genealogy as legal successor to the throne of David. St. Luke's is Joseph's private Genealogy, exhibiting his real birth as David's son, and thus showing why he was heir to Solomon's crown. The simple principle that one evangelist exhibits that genealogy which contained the successive heir to David's and Solomon's throne, while the other exhibits the paternal stem of him who was the heir, explains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees, their agreements as well as their discrepancies, and the circumstance of there being two at all.

3. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in all probability the daughter of Jacob, and first cousin to Joseph her husband. Thus: Matthan or Matthat

father of Jacob, Heli Jacob father of Mary = Jacob's heir was (Joseph) Heli father of Joseph JESUS, called Christ. (Godet, Lange and many others take the ground that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, rendering
Lu 3:23

thus: Jesus "being (as was suppposed) the son of Joseph, (but in reality) the son of Heli." In this case Mary, as declared in the Targums, was the daughter of Heli, and Heli was the grandfather of Jesus. Mary's name was omitted because "ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link." So we often find in the Old Testament the grandson called the son. This view has this greatly in its favor, that it shows that Jesus was not merely the legal but the actual descendant of David; and it would be very strange that in the gospel accounts, where so much is made of Jesus being the son and heir of David and of his kingdom his real descent from David should not be given.--ED.)

Most commentators, dictionaries, and encyclopedias point to the same thing--that Luke's genealogy is Mary's genealogy. It would be strange indeed that Bible would leave out the genealogy of Christ that points back to the throne of David and all the prophecies relating to it. For that genealogy is not in Joseph. I will again give the information related to Joseph's genealogy:

[FONT=&quot]. Jer. 22:24-30 shows that the curse of Jechoniah demanded the virgin birth.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a. The Lord's promise to David (2 Sam.7:16): Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b. Several generations later Jehoiachin (Coniah) was cursed (Jer.22:30): Thus saith the Lord write this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c. The physical link was cursed by God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]d. Joseph, the legal father of Jesus, was of this cursed line.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]e. The solution: Mary was a descendant of Nathan, another son of David (Lk.3:31).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]f. There was no other way that the Lord Jesus could have escaped the curse. The fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin birth is the only way the Lord could be true to His promise to David and His curse on Jehoiachin.[/FONT]

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jer 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Hag 2:23 In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.

HP: Let me inject some ‘what if’s’ into the equation for the benefit and enjoyment of DHK.

What if Jeconiah had no natural children just as the curse states he will not? What if in fact Jeconiah had an adopted son which became a legal heir to the lineage of David? What if Shealtiel the son of Neri was his adopted son and as such in no wise be cursed under this curse, for he would not have been of his ‘seed?’

A second solution to the problem would be simply that Shealttiel and Zerubbabel were simply not one in the same individuals. Would this not establish that in either of the two cases mentioned the curse God placed upon Jeconiah would not have in actuality passed on to any successive generations? It would appear to at least some that it would.

Yet a third possibility lies in Hag. 2:23 in which many scholars feel that the curse was lifted by Divine decree. At any rate, I see no reason to conclude that the curse of Jeconiah has any real impact on Joseph not being in the royal bloodline and as such having a legal right to the throne of David just as Scripture in two genealogies states he does have. I choose to reason from the latest word on the issue in Matt. and Luke, and then see how I might in fact be reasoning wrong concerning the curse and what other possibilities are out there that would harmonize all the facts.

 

[DHK]

At any rate, I see no reason to conclude that the curse of Jeconiah has any real impact on Joseph not being in the royal bloodline and as such having a legal right to the throne of David just as Scripture in two genealogies states he does have. I choose to reason from the latest word on the issue in Matt. and Luke, and then see how I might in fact be reasoning wrong concerning the curse and what other possibilities are out there that would harmonize all the facts.

I don't understand how you can come to such a conclusion unless you just close your eyes and ignore all the evidence already given.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I don't understand how you can come to such a conclusion unless you just close your eyes and ignore all the evidence already given.

HP: That indeed would be a travesty on my part if that was the case. I pray it is not. Pray one for another that the eyes and ears of our understanding will be open to the truth and that our lives will be found to be walking in accordance to it.