The Birth and Nature of Christ

[standingfirminChrist]

An opinion is simply a vain man's imagination.
Stating something without anything to back it up is absurd.

Isn't your view of Mary's egg being used an opinion?

Since the Word of God never mentions it to be truth, it must be...gasp! opinion.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Scripture declares that his body would not see corruption after his resurrection.

Where exactly does it say that? In the 5 verses in my Bible that I have looked up 'see corruption' as an exact phrase, 'after His resurrection' is nowhere near.

Can you point me to Scripture that shows your above statement to be true, please?

 

[donnA]

HP: I believe that would be properly denoted as a 'will' burden. :laugh:
You both do know that continually pounding your head against a brick wall can corrupt your physical head and thought patterns. :smilewinkgrin:

an experience you've had?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

an experience you've had?

Now that was funny.:laugh::thumbs:

 

[DHK]

Isn't your view of Mary's egg being used an opinion?

Since the Word of God never mentions it to be truth, it must be...gasp! opinion.

No, I avoid vain interpretations of words, and take the Bible literally.
When the Bible says a virgin will conceive I believe the Bible even though I may not understand all that is involved; just as I may not understand all that is involved in the trinity. But, by faith I accept the Bible as true. It says a virgin shall conceive. That means: her egg shall be ferilized in every day common English. I don't stretch the English or Hebrew or Greek to find other meanings of this word or any other word to fit my pre-conceived ideas. I accept the Bible for what it says.

Likewise when the Bible says:
Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

I accept those words by faith.
Conception involves a fertilized egg under normal circumstances. And there is no reason to change the meaning of the word. In Luke 1:34,35 the context is so obvious that it can have no other meaning but the utilization of a fertilized egg. Context is everything in the definition of words.

What did Mary mean when she said to the angel?
"How shall this be seeing I know not a man?

She was obviously speaking of her egg being fertilized.
It is not necessary for the Bible to use modern day Biological terminology for this concept to be taught. Why do you insist that the Bible use modern day Biological terms? Such insistence; such barriers or demands put on God is absurd. You have made yourself an instructor of God, telling God that He has to say things your way or it is not right.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

hold on, DHK. several pages back, or was it on the previous thread, you insisted they did not know what the egg was, now Mary knew?

Even if she knew the natural process, she was affirming she did not know a man. The angel never said a thing about an egg. You are adding your own presuppositions into the equation.

 

[DHK]

hold on, DHK. several pages back, or was it on the previous thread, you insisted they did not know what the egg was, now Mary knew?

Even if she knew the natural process, she was affirming she did not know a man. The angel never said a thing about an egg. You are adding your own presuppositions into the equation.

SFIC, I think you can think this one through for yourself.
From time immemorial (even since the time of Adam) man has know how to reproduce. He has known what conception is. That basic fact has never changed. He may not have known what: ovum, meiosis, mitosis, zygote, fetus, etc. is. But he knew what conception was. I will quote from Genesis:

Genesis 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

He knew what conception was and what caused it. They were not as ignorant as you are supposing.

 

[Eliyahu]

I don't know what question you asked. I went back through the thread and I didn't see any questions addressed to me.

I hope you don't deny what you said before at the previous thread:


Please answer my questions so that we may clarify further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annsni
Originally Posted by annsni
The Word became flesh when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary.

No - your belief that Mary contributed nothing to the Messiah is a new belief and one that was NOT accepted since the first century. Show me one verse or one credible source that agrees with you.

You said this as well.

Egg becomes Word

Now you say:
Word became Flesh

Which one is correct?

Which flesh did the Word become when Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary?

When Word became flesh, what happened to the egg of Mary when Holy Spirit overshadowed her?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

SFIC, I think you can think this one through for yourself.
From time immemorial (even since the time of Adam) man has know how to reproduce. He has known what conception is. That basic fact has never changed. He may not have known what: ovum, meiosis, mitosis, zygote, fetus, etc. is. But he knew what conception was. I will quote from Genesis:

Genesis 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

He knew what conception was and what caused it. They were not as ignorant as you are supposing.

DHK, we are not talking about a natural conception. The Scripture declares it was not. We cannot use the natural process and say that had to be how it happened.

 

[Eliyahu]

Who do you have in mind?

Are you suggesting that only people who agree with you are saved?

If so, then wow, just wow.

It should be a general introduction that people exhcange the testimony of the salvation in the way as we exchange the business card, so that one may identify the other parties as the true Christians. Unfortunately this board doesn't allow it though such process may be abused as well.

I don't judge the Salvation only by agreeing or disagreeing with me. I am sure DHK is saved even though he disagreed with me many times. But often I felt the questions about the salvation of the Catholic proponents.

When I read many shallow understanding of the Biblical truth on your posts and see the Rave Party Music video at your home page ( though you may defend the contents) I felt like to question about your salvation too.
Jesus showed us in Matthew 7:13-23 that many people believed that they are saved, but the judgment would be different, and Jesus said I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work in equity. Hope you are not among them.

 

[DHK]

DHK, we are not talking about a natural conception. The Scripture declares it was not. We cannot use the natural process and say that had to be how it happened.

The definition of the word conception still involves a fertilized egg. You cannot completely change the meaning of the word. Because it says a virgin conceived one may assume that there is no human sperm involved, otherwise it wouldn't be a virgin conceiving. But that doesn't negate the utilization of a woman's egg being fertilized. We stick to the definition as closely as possible. We can't change it at our whim and wish, just because we have a different theology.

 

[annsni]

I hope you don't deny what you said before at the previous thread:

Why would I do that??

Please answer my questions so that we may clarify further.


You said this as well.

Egg becomes Word

Now you say:
Word became Flesh

Which one is correct?

Which flesh did the Word become when Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary?

When Word became flesh, what happened to the egg of Mary when Holy Spirit overshadowed her?

Depends on which side of eternal you're sitting on! The Word has always existed. Mary's egg did not. When the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, the Word became flesh, just as the Scripture says. In keeping with the prophecies, Jesus came from Mary's flesh because otherwise He'd not be of the lineage of David. I already pointed out all the arguments on that.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

It is quite evident God changed it for one instance, DHK.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Why would I do that??



Depends on which side of eternal you're sitting on! The Word has always existed. Mary's egg did not. When the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, the Word became flesh, just as the Scripture says. In keeping with the prophecies, Jesus came from Mary's flesh because otherwise He'd not be of the lineage of David. I already pointed out all the arguments on that.

albeit as wrong as your arguments were.

 

[DHK]

It is quite evident God changed it for one instance, DHK.

NO, that is an assumption on your part, and only because you want to believe something different--not because the Bible teaches anything different.

 

[cowboymatt]

It should be a general introduction that people exhcange the testimony of the salvation in the way as we exchange the business card, so that one may identify the other parties as the true Christians. Unfortunately this board doesn't allow it though such process may be abused as well.

I don't judge the Salvation only by agreeing or disagreeing with me. I am sure DHK is saved even though he disagreed with me many times. But often I felt the questions about the salvation of the Catholic proponents.

When I read many shallow understanding of the Biblical truth on your posts and see the Rave Party Music video at your home page ( though you may defend the contents) I felt like to question about your salvation too.
Jesus showed us in Matthew 7:13-23 that many people believed that they are saved, but the judgment would be different, and Jesus said I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work in equity. Hope you are not among them.

Rave party music? Where?

Not here.
Or here.
Or here, where the song that plays when you click is from a Christian band.
Or here.

So where's this "rave party music" of which you write?

And where have I espoused shallow understanding of biblical truth? At the places where I have disagreed with you? If that's so, then that's sad.

Jesus is my Lord and Savior, there's no need for you or anyone else on this board to call that into question. If you want to know my story, then please, by all means, private message me and I'll share it. Otherwise, never question my salvation again.

Have I questioned your salvation? No, not once. Have I personally attacked you like you have me? No, not once. If you can't keep your punches above the belt, then get out of the ring.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

NO, that is an assumption on your part, and only because you want to believe something different--not because the Bible teaches anything different.

It is an assumption on your part that Mary's egg was used.

 

[DHK]

It is an assumption on your part that Mary's egg was used.

You are going around in circles and in the process denying God's word by making up your own definiitons of accepted words as I already demonstrated to you. I demonstrated to you how conception means that an egg is fertilized. I used Scripture both OT and NT. But yet you still want to deny it. It comes down to a matter of belief vs. opinion.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I do not deny God's Word. God's Word nowhere implies Mary's egg was used. To say it does is reading into the Word what is not there.

Bible declares Power of the Most High overshadowed and she conceived.

I believe it and preach it. I do not add to it by stating that it says there was Mary's egg involved.

 

[Brother Bob]

If it was all God and the egg was not used, He couldn't have died.

Hbr 2:9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

BBob,