The Birth and Nature of Christ

[Brother Bob]

A typical resort is the so-called church fathers when the people cannot find the support in the Bible.

Those OT bible mentions about the inheritance of the daughters. I do not ignore them, nor do I rule out the possibility that the genealogy of Luke is for Mary. But I do not rule out the possibility of Joseph's mother because Joseph's name is there but Mary's name is not there.

Do the OT verses omit the names of the daughters? Do they provide any clue for the Biological Motherhood?

Moreover this is not core issue either.

The real core issue is this:

1) How Biological Motherhood can be compatible with Incarnation.
How did Egg of Mary form a human form while the Word became Flesh.

2) How the sin nature of the Egg of Mary could be avoided.

How can we question the power and work of God, for with Him all things are possible?
Mary's seed is the best possible answer to me. We are all entitled to what we believe. I have believed it was through Mary's seed for many years and have found nothing on here to change my mind. Even Justin said Mary's seed was from David.

I can find scripture too and have quoted it to no avail.


Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Notice He "was made of the seed of David". You cannot just throw out the "seed of David" because of something you can't explain about the sinless body. With God all things are possible.

BBob,

 

[DHK]

How can we question the power and work of God, for with Him all things are possible?
Mary's seed is the best possible answer to me. We are all entitled to what we believe. I have believed it was through Mary's seed for many years and have found nothing on here to change my mind. Even Justin said Mary's seed was from David.

BBob,

Amen! Brother Bob.

 

[Eliyahu]

Because He was 100 percent man and 100 percent God. IMO
And I did not leave the name of Joseph out of anything that I remember. Joseph according to scripture had no part in the birth of Christ, and to say so is distorting the scripture. IMO.

BBob,

YOu said this:

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,"


The Bible verse is simple:

Jesus son of Joseph tou Heli to Matthat....

Where is the clue that the genealogy is the Mary's genealogy?





God appeared in Flesh to Abraham, and He appeared to Jacob in flesh. Wasn't He 100% God and 100% Man? If not what was the further requirement?

​

 

[Brother Bob]

YOu said this:

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,"


The Bible verse is simple:

Jesus son of Joseph tou Heli to Matthat....

Where is the clue that the genealogy is the Mary's genealogy?





God appeared in Flesh to Abraham, and He appeared to Jacob in flesh. Wasn't He 100% God and 100% Man? If not what was the further requirement?


​

It makes no difference whether I left out Joseph or not, he never was in the genelogy line of Jesus. I will research it some more though.

BBob,

 

[Eliyahu]

I will repeat the same questions again.


1) How Biological Motherhood can be compatible with Incarnation.
How did Egg of Mary form a human form while the Word became Flesh.

2) How the sin nature of the Egg of Mary could be avoided.

 

[Eliyahu]

It makes no difference whether I left out Joseph or not, he never was in the genelogy line of Jesus. I will research it some more though.

BBob,

If the seed of Mary was used, then if the genealogy of Mary was so important, why did Luke omit the name of Mary there while even much less important name of Joseph is mentioned there?

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob, look up the Greek. 'seed of David' does not infer bloodline, only family. Christ was born in his family, but because God placed Him in the womb of Mary. Not because of her egg or another man's sperm cell.

Gen 3:15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Sfic; if not for the Law of Moses in Numbers, you would be right, but Moses made and exception for the daughters who had no brothers in the inheritance and carrying on the name.


BBob,

 

[Eliyahu]

You will never be able to explain how the Word became Flesh as long as you maintain the Biological Motherhood.

 

[DHK]

Where is the clue that the genealogy is the Mary's genealogy?

Here is what A.T. Robertson says:

Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli ([FONT=&quot]ōn huios hōs enomizeto Iōsēph tou Helei[/FONT]). The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to “Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ” (Mat_1:16). Matthew employs the word “begot” each time, while Luke has the article [FONT=&quot]tou[/FONT] repeating [FONT=&quot]huiou[/FONT] (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that “Jacob begat Joseph” while Luke calls “Joseph the son of Heli.” There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase “as was supposed” ([FONT=&quot]hōs enomizeto[/FONT]). His own narrative in Luk_1:26-38 has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, [FONT=&quot]huios[/FONT] must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses “begat” for descent, so does Luke employ “son” in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in Mat_1:16, Mat_1:18-25 that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds “the Son of God” after Adam (Luk_3:38). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.

 

[Brother Bob]

I will repeat the same questions again.


1) How Biological Motherhood can be compatible with Incarnation.
How did Egg of Mary form a human form while the Word became Flesh.

2) How the sin nature of the Egg of Mary could be avoided.

Jhn 4:24God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

Jesus was a Rock, Wisdom, Word, He was in many forms down through time, Tree of Life etc, here He was made flesh. You do know that God could of raised us up from rocks don't you. He did not need a sperm and an egg to make man, but He chose to do it that way. In the case of Jesus it was by the Holy Ghost.

BBob,

 

[Eliyahu]

Here is what A.T. Robertson says:
[/font]

That is just a human guesswork, no biblical ground, and jump up in the logic.

Why not Heli is the father of Joseph's mother? Why did Luke omit the name of Mary? or why didn't he give any clue that it is the genealogy of Mary?

All the others are human conjecture, and I do not care about it. Such cannot be any basis for the theology.

Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough


If we believe that the genealogy is the mother side of Joseph, it is simple too.

 

[DHK]

That is just a human guesswork, no biblical ground, and jump up in the logic.

It is not just guesswork. Read the rest of the post and the rest of the reasons that are given, not just my hi-lighted statement.

 

[Linda64]

Jhn 4:24God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

Jesus was a Rock, Wisdom, Word, He was in many forms down through time, Tree of Life etc, here He was made flesh. You do know that God could of raised us up from rocks don't you. He did not need a sperm and an egg to make man, but He chose to do it that way. In the case of Jesus it was by the Holy Ghost.

BBob,

Jesus is THE Rock, not a literal rock.

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Where in Scripture does it say that Jesus is the Tree of Life?

Proverbs 3:18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.

The "she" in this verse is speaking of "wisdom"...not Christ...besides Christ isn't a "she".

God didn't raise men up from rocks, He formed man from the dust of the ground

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.

Therefore, He is able to implant His seed in the womb without needing Mary's egg. To say that He needed Mary's egg in order to produce the Christ-child is limiting the very thing that God told Mary would happen to her "the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee" (Luke 1:35)

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, 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.

 

[DHK]

Therefore, He is able to implant His seed

God is able to do many things.
But that is not what the Bible teaches and that is the problem with many of the arguments that are presented here. They are suppositional arguments. They are not based on Scripture. They are: God is able, Suppose, What if, Why can't, etc.
One can't make an argument from silence and from suppositions. You must be able to start with a Biblical premise not a supposition, a "what if"

 

[Brother Bob]

Jesus is THE Rock, not a literal rock.

Deu 32:4[He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

You gave my answer for me.

Where in Scripture does it say that Jesus is the Tree of Life?

Act 4:12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.


I believe God said if they eat of the "tree of Life" they would live forever. Unless you believe there is two names given under Heaven where a man can be saved?

Gen 3:22¶And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:


Proverbs 3:18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.

The "she" in this verse is speaking of "wisdom"...not Christ...besides Christ isn't a "she".

Proverbs:
1: Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:
2: She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table.
3: She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth upon the highest places of the city,
4: Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,
5: Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.
6: Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.
7: He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.
8: Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
9: Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.
10: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
11: For by me thy days shall be multiplied, and the years of thy life shall be increased.
12: If thou be wise, thou shalt be wise for thyself: but if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it.
13: A foolish woman is clamourous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing.
14: For she sitteth at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city,
15: To call passengers who go right on their ways:
16: Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: and as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,
17: Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.
18: But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell.


See above.

God didn't raise men up from rocks, He formed man from the dust of the ground

I said He was able to do so:

Mat 3:9And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

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.

Therefore, He is able to implant His seed in the womb without needing Mary's egg. To say that He needed Mary's egg in order to produce the Christ-child is limiting the very thing that God told Mary would happen to her "the power of the Highest would overshadow thee" (Luke 1:35)

Why did He need Mary then??

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, 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.

2Ti 2:8Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:


The word will stand when the world is on fire!

BBob,

 

[standingfirminChrist]

DHK, practice what you're preaching. The Bible does not say an egg was used. But your argument is that it was.

You are teaching a Christadelphian doctrine. They teach that the Word became an egg first and then became flesh.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Brother Bob, again you ignore the fact that seed of David does not mean bloodline. It is offspring.

Jesus was Mary's offspring only because He came from her loins. Her egg was not used.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: 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"??

HP: When one thinks normally about the import of the word ‘begat’ it clearly involves intercourse. That was not the case with Jesus, therefore I believe the word begat was omitted seeing the actual implantation of the seed was accomplished by the Holy Spirit.

I have to have faith in the translators, in that they correctly placed the quotation marks. You change the whole meaning of the verse when you decide for yourself that they might be wrong and suggest that you can simply move them where it might be convenient for ones ideas. I shudder at the thought of twisted rendering one might conjure up following such a suggestion in other verses as well. I would consider your suggestion as a pathway to darkness, with the end being a great darkness and blight upon the truth of the Word of God.

Bear in mind I understand full well that we are simply reasoning together, and I believe you simply threw this notion out as a mere possibility and in actuality you do not believe such would be a proper handling of the Word of God…..or at least that would be my hope.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: 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?

HP: I am still awaiting an answer from DHK and others on this issue. This was a primary question in the OP.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

AT Robertson on Romans 8:3

In the likeness of sinful flesh (en 
homoiômatisarkos hamartias). For 
"likeness" see Php 2:7, a real man, 
but more than man for God's "own 
Son." Two genitives "of flesh of sin" 
(marked by sin), that is the flesh of man 
is, but not the flesh of Jesus.

Since Jesus' flesh is not marked by sin, it cannot be of Mary's egg.