The Birth and Nature of Christ

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: I would like to start this off as a follow up of DHK's thread on a similiar note which was closed. I will start with comments made by Linda as her post went unanswered.

Linda: If you don't believe that sin is passed down genetically, why is there sicknes, death, birth defects, physical handicaps, etc., from where does sin come from and how come all are born with a sin nature as Romans 3:23 states?

HP: Sickness etc is indeed passed down through the depraved physical being of man. That is not sin. That is the effects of sin. Sin merits the punishment of God. Do you think God would be just to punish you because you were born physically handicapped or because you inherited a terrible disease? The problem you exemplify is the Augustinian error that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh as opposed to the will. The will, not the sensibilities or the flesh, is where sin is birthed and resides.

Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

HP: Is it any wonder how we perpetuate the myth of original sin? Here is a clear verse that simply states that all have sinned, and says NOTHING about a sin nature in the least, and yet as Linda does here, so many read their presupposition of a ‘sin nature’ or OS into the text. I suppose it is because they have heard it done so often in the pulpit.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I was also charged with heresy by DHK on the basis of stating that the DNA or sperm of Joseph may well have been used to create the physical body of Jesus. I was told that if the sperm of Joseph was used that would be tantamount to saying Jesus was the product of fornication. As far as I know DHK has allowed the ‘heresy’ charge to stand without any retraction.

I would like to ask the list, if any would charge a man with fornication if his sperm was used to fertilize an egg in a laboratory and then surgically implanted in the womb of a women the man, who donated the sperm, never knew the women?


The question concerning the genealogy of Christ is also another side issue. I have seen no verifiable evidence whatsoever that either of the two genealogies of Christ were that of Mary’s. I would have hoped that it would be self evident from the genealogies in Scripture that it is the man that is the focus of genealogies involving the Jewish race, not the women. Is there any on the list that would venture to set forth an example to the contrary?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I was also charged with heresy by DHK on the basis of stating that the DNA or sperm of Joseph may well have been used to create the physical body of Jesus. I was told that if the sperm of Joseph was used that would be tantamount to saying Jesus was the product of fornication. As far as I know DHK has allowed the ‘heresy’ charge to stand without any retraction.

I would like to ask the list, if any would charge a man with fornication if his sperm was used to fertilize an egg in a laboratory and then surgically implanted in the womb of a women the man, who donated the sperm, never knew the women?


The question concerning the genealogy of Christ is also another side issue. I have seen no verifiable evidence whatsoever that either of the two genealogies of Christ were that of Mary’s. I would have hoped that it would be self evident from the genealogies in Scripture that it is the man that is the focus of genealogies involving the Jewish race, not the women. Is there any on the list that would venture to set forth an example to the contrary?

Without getting bogged down in a discussion about the 'sin nature' (my view is closer to that of the Eastern Fathers and to classical Wesleyan-Arminians than to Augustine), I'll simply comment on the geneology question. It's my understanding that both geneologies--in Luke and Matthew--are Joseph's rather than Mary's. The difference has to do with Joseph's legal father versus natural father, and I believe one of the church Father's first mentioned this (can't remember who). At any rate, I read an article on this a while back (and had even heard that earlier in a bible study about 7 years ago). If I'm not mistaken the same article mentioned that Mary's parents Joachim and Anna were also descendents of David (I believe the Protoevangelium of James also mentions this, but I'll have to double check) and that Mary and Joseph are distant cousins.

I'll get back with you if I can learn otherwise...

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Shall we stir and add to the pot a little more? Oh yes, there is still another topic that has been raised by DHK and some others I believe, that has been a topic of discussion before but obviously needs to be addressed again. What about this curse of Jeconiah, and would this in fact of prevented Joseph from being a rightful heir to the throne of David? I say no.

 

[Brother Bob]

Shall we stir and add to the pot a little more? Oh yes, there is still another topic that has been raised by DHK and some others I believe, that has been a topic of discussion before but obviously needs to be addressed again. What about this curse of Jeconiah, and would this in fact of prevented Joseph from being a rightful heir to the throne of David? I say no.

What if in Luke the parentheses which was placed by translators was placed incorrectly and it should of been placed.
And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, (being as was supposed the son of Joseph)

which was the son of Eli..

which would be saying that Jesus was the son of Heli.

Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, ..who was the son of Heli,"

Neither Matt or Luke ever says that Joseph begat Jesus, does it?

It says Jacob begat Joseph who was the husband of Mary, who gave birth to Jesus. Why did it not say "Joseph begat Jesus"??

The Jewish schools who taught the Talmud torah on 77:4 says that Heli was the father of Mary, if what I read is correct.

Is there anyone who has the actual reading of the Talmud torah 77:4, so we could read it for ourselves??

BBob,

​

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Here's a Wikipedia article for what it's worth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus_Christ

I'll see what else I can find

 

[cowboymatt]

Is there anyone who has the actual reading of the Talmud torah 77:4, so we could read it for ourselves??

BBob,

[/INDENT]

I can give you a quote from the Talmud, but "Talmud Torah" does not exist as the name of a Talmudic tractate. Check your source to see if there is a different tractate name.

 

[Matt Black]

It's my understanding that both geneologies--in Luke and Matthew--are Joseph's rather than Mary's. The difference has to do with Joseph's legal father versus natural father, and I believe one of the church Father's first mentioned this (can't remember who).

I think Eusebius covers this in some depth in his Church History but I can't remember what he says Will try and look it up when I get home

 

[Brother Bob]

I can give you a quote from the Talmud, but "Talmud Torah" does not exist as the name of a Talmudic tractate. Check your source to see if there is a different tractate name.

There are no parenthesis in the original Greek text.
What if in Luke the parentheses which was placed by translators was placed incorrectly and it should of been placed.
And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, (being as was supposed the son of Joseph)

1. Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."
2. Num 36:6-7, "This is what the Lord commands with regard to the daughters of Salphahad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe, so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage."

1. Matthew gives us the legal line from Abraham through David and Solomon to Joseph, Jesus' legal father (Matthew 1:1-17). Luke, a physician, gives us his genealogy from Adam to David-but then takes a surprising turn through the second surviving son of Bathsheba, Nathan, and brings us to Heli, the father of Mary (Luke 3:23-28; Jerusalem Talmud, Chag. 77,4). The specific exceptions noted in the Torah regarding the daughters of Zelophehad are anticipatory of this situation (Numbers 26:33; 27:1-11; 36:2-12).

BBob, gotta go to the Gymn, be back later.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Joseph's sperm cell could not have been used as Jesus would have been fully human.

Mary's egg could not have been used as Scripture clearly shows all men born to women are unclean.

John Calvin said:

This law is of itself abundantly sufficient to prove original sin, while it contains a striking proof of the grace of God; for there could not be a clearer demonstration of the curse pronounced on mankind than when the Lord declared, that the child comes from its mother unclean and polluted, and that the mother herself is consequently defiled by childbearing. Certainly, if man were not born a sinner, if he were not by nature a child of wrath, (Eph 2:3,) if some taint of sin did not dwell in him, he would have no need of purification. Hence it follows, that all are corrupted in Adam; for the mouth of the Lord charges all with pollution.

Albert Barnes:

There is not in the Hebrew word any idea corresponding to the word ""shapen,"" as if he had been "formed" or "moulded" in that manner by divine power; but the entire meaning of the word is exhausted by saying that his sin could be traced back to his "very birth;" that it was so deep and aggravated, that it could be accounted for - or that he could express his sense of it - in no other way, than by saying that he was "born a sinner." How that occurred, or how it was connected with the first apostasy in Adam, or how the fact that he was thus born could be vindicated, is not intimated, nor is it alluded to. There is no statement that the sin of another was "imputed" to him; or that he was "responsible" for the sin of Adam; or that he was guilty "on account of" Adam's sin, for on these points the psalmist makes no assertion. It is worthy of remark, further, that the psalmist did not endeavor to "excuse" his guilt on the ground that he was ""born"" in iniquity; nor did he allude to that fact with any purpose of "exculpating" himself. The fact that he was thus born only deepened his sense of his own guilt, or showed the enormity of the offence which was the regular result or outbreak of that carly depravity. The points, therefore, which are established by this expression of the psalmist, so far as the language is designed to illustrate how human nature is conceived, are

(1) that people are born with a propensity to sin; and

(2) that this fact does not excuse us in sin, but rather tends to aggravate and deepen our guilt.

 

[Matt Black]

Joseph's sperm cell could not have been used as Jesus would have been fully human.

Newsflash: Jesus was fully human; He wasn't half-human like Mr Spock. He was also fully God.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Newsflash: Jesus was fully human; He wasn't half-human like Mr Spock. He was also fully God.

News Flash... Had Jesus been of Joseph's sperm cell and Mary's egg, He would not have been God at all.

 

[cowboymatt]

Ugh. There is not a single Biblical passage that indicates with no doubt that damnable sin is passed genetically. Please stop saying that there is, because there is not. Jesus would not have been blemished had an egg been used, since dambable sin is not passed down genetically. You and many others are reading your theological concept of original sin on texts that don't in fact support this.

To Brother Bob: I have to go to the library today, so I'll look up the passage you have indicated. "Chag." is short for "Chagigah" by the way.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Keep telling yourself that, cowboymatt, and you will never see the truth that is written in the Word of God.

 

[donnA]

Ugh. There is not a single Biblical passage that indicates with no doubt that damnable sin is passed genetically. Please stop saying that there is, because there is not. Jesus would not have been blemished had an egg been used, since dambable sin is not passed down genetically. You and many others are reading your theological concept of original sin on texts that don't in fact support this.

To Brother Bob: I have to go to the library today, so I'll look up the passage you have indicated. "Chag." is short for "Chagigah" by the way.

Don't know about you or anyone else, but I read about sin in the bible, and have never read some old texts about it.
Just how do you think each person inherits the sin nature?

 

[donnA]

This is from the other thread, and it's still an open question to Ann,

Originally Posted by annsni
Well, let's see - the Bible says that the Word became flesh and that what was conceived in Mary was of the Holy Spirit. So I'd say that the egg was miraculously fertilized and the Word indwelt that resulting baby - the flesh. How's that? God prepared a body for Christ to indwell - to have the two different persons/natures come together in one. If we look at natural conception, we can see a similar idea - a sperm and egg unite and become a brand new thing. Once that egg is fertilized, we can no longer see an egg or a sperm but it is now a new creation with it's own attributes.

donnA: Let me get this straight, God fertilized Mary's egg, and created a body for Jesus, and then Jesus indwelt the prepared body?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb, and yet Christ still had to die for him. Why? Because he was born with the sin nature. All flesh is under that curse and susceptible to sin

There was only one flesh born on this earth that could not sin. And all other flesh hung Him on a cross.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Searching through my many books, I cannot find one instance of Abbott, Barnes, Calvin, Clarke, Bounds, Easton, Edersheim, Fausset, Finney, Osborn, Sir Robert Anderson, Smith, Spurgeon, or Torrey making mention of Mary's egg in any of their commentaries.


Where did the doctrine of Mary's egg originate? Certainly not the Word of God. Nor from any of those listed above.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

From this it is clear that the Birth of Christ is not to be understood as an ordinary human birth; which is the birth of a being that had no previous existence, and that had no choice as to its being born. There were only two ways Christ could become "flesh" and dwell among us, one was to be born, as the Scriptures say He was born, of a virgin; the other was to incarnate Himself in some man, some grand character like Samuel or Daniel, but that would be to incarnate Himself in SINFUL HUMAN NATURE. For Christ to have made for Himself a human body in which to dwell during His earthly life would not have fulfilled the Scriptures as to the Messiah being born of the "Seed of David," and of a Virgin (Isa 7:14 A. V.), nor would He then have been subject to the limitations of humanity with all its frailties and weaknesses. The nature of the case demanded a "Virgin Birth."

If it be said that the Virgin Mary with an inherited taint of sin in her nature could not bring forth a pure offspring, it must not be forgotten that that which was conceived in her was of the Holy Ghost, and Mary was so informed by the Angel Gabriel.

"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of THE HIGHEST shall overshadow thee; therefore also that `Holy Thing' which shall be born of thee shall be called the SON OF GOD." Lu 1:35.

From this we see that the embryo that was deposited in the womb of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost contained no taint of sin, and that Mary's womb was simply the vehicle for the formation of the human body of Christ into which the "Spirit of Christ" entered at birth and thus was formed the GOD-MAN.

Four times in his Gospel John calls Jesus the "Only Begotten Son of God." This does not refer to His Eternal origin, for He was coexistent with the Father, but refers to His Virgin Birth. God never begat another son as Jesus was begotten, so He was the only begotton "Son of God." The Apostle Paul in Col 1:14-15, speaks of Jesus as the "Image of the Invisible God, the FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE." This cannot mean that Jesus is only a "Creature," for in the next verse Jesus is described as the Creator of all things. The probable explanation is that as Jesus became by His human birth-- "God Manifest in the FLESH," (1Ti 3:16), thus becoming to men the "IMAGE of the Invisible God," that He thus became the "Firstborn" of the NEW CREATION of God, of which race the "Second" or "Last Adam" (Christ) is the HEAD. 1Co 15:45; 2Co 5:17. It is noteworthy that Jesus is not called the "Son OF GOD, or the "Son OF MAN," in the Scriptures before His Incarnation with but two exceptions, and both of these occur in the Book of Daniel, and look forward to His redemptive work at the close of this Dispensation. Da 3:25; 7:13.

The claim that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus is disclaimed by Scripture, for we are told that when they were only espoused, "before they came together," and Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant, he proposed to "put her away" (divorce her), but being told in a dream that she was in that condition by the Holy Ghost, Joseph, to protect her character, married her, but "knew her not" until she had brought forth her firstborn son. Mt 1:18-25. But the Scriptures go farther than that to safeguard the Virgin Birth of Jesus. In Matthew's Gospel we have the genealogical table of Joseph's ancestry tracing him back to Abraham. In Luke's Gospel we have the genealogical ancestry of Mary tracing her back to Adam. See the Chart on The Virgin Birth. That there are similar names in the two tables presents no difficulty as such a thing is common in tracing any long line of descent. The statement in Matthew that "Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary," and the statement in Luke that "Joseph was (as supposed) the Son of Heli" are easily reconciled, for Joseph could not be the son of both Jacob and Heli. The fact that the translators of the King James version use the word "supposed," and that the word "son" is in italics (which indicates that it is not in the original but is placed there to make sense) shows that some other word could be inserted that would make sense, and that word is "son-in-law," and so it could read, "Joseph which was the `son-in-law' of Heli." This makes the genealogy of Luke that of Mary, for two genealogies so clearly unlike could not both be the genealogy of Joseph.

Clarence Larkin - Rightly Dividing The Word; 1920

 

[annsni]

This is from the other thread, and it's still an open question to Ann,

Originally Posted by annsni
Well, let's see - the Bible says that the Word became flesh and that what was conceived in Mary was of the Holy Spirit. So I'd say that the egg was miraculously fertilized and the Word indwelt that resulting baby - the flesh. How's that? God prepared a body for Christ to indwell - to have the two different persons/natures come together in one. If we look at natural conception, we can see a similar idea - a sperm and egg unite and become a brand new thing. Once that egg is fertilized, we can no longer see an egg or a sperm but it is now a new creation with it's own attributes.

donnA: Let me get this straight, God fertilized Mary's egg, and created a body for Jesus, and then Jesus indwelt the prepared body?

[/I]

The Scriptures say in Hebrews 10:5, "but a body hast thou prepared me:" God prepared a body for Jesus. That's God's Word.