The Birth and Nature of Christ

[standingfirminChrist]

The Word of God declares Jesus to be the Son of the Living God. That is exactly who He is. Had Joseph's sperm cell been used, He would not be the Son of God but the son of Joseph.

God's Word is true. God placed His Son in the womb of Mary, bypassing the natural.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: and brings us to Heli, the father of Mary (Luke 3:23-28;

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,

HP: I find no such thing mentioned in these verses. Heli is said to be the father of Joseph, not Mary. He was, just as they supposed. The problem is that they did not understand the process that took place in the conceiving of Jesus by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Brother Bob]

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.

I do know the translators put the quotations marks in to show that Joseph was only supposed to be the father of Jesus. I also know without the quotations marks one could get from the passage that it also separates Joseph from the linage of Jesus.
I have been forced to go to the Greek many times in the discussing of scripture and continue to do so. I said I would do some more research on it and found that it seems almost all of the translators used the quotation marks, so I simply leave it as a suggestion that Luke could indeed of meant, Mary's linage.

BBob,

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Cowboymatt: Reading original sin which is passed down genetically into the Bible is simply bad exegesis...in fact its not exegesis. Exegesis means getting meaning "out of" the text, while eisegesis means putting meaning "onto" the text. When reading the Bible we have to put our theological wishes aside and actually see what it says on its own without reading Augustine, Calvin, Luther, or anyone else's theology on top of it.

HP: Well stated Cowboy!:thumbs: My fathers best friend was a real cowboy with some good old common sense as you exhibit. May your tribe increase!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BB: I do know the translators put the quotations marks in to show that Joseph was only supposed to be the father of Jesus.

HP: I could not disagree with you more on that issue. ‘He was, just as they supposed,’ is the direct implication from the translators. If he was not, he had no right to be an heir to the throne of David.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Agnus Dei: Jesus being fully human and fully divine, His humanity submitted to His divinity.
I’m guilty of my own sin, not Adam’s; I only inherited the consequences of Adam’s sin.

HP: I could not agree with you more. Well stated.:thumbs: I believe Jesus had to accept His position as God by faith.

It is good to see you have a keen comprehension of the difference between sin and a consequence of sin.

 

[Eliyahu]

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,

HP: I find no such thing mentioned in these verses. Heli is said to be the father of Joseph, not Mary. He was, just as they supposed. The problem is that they did not understand the process that took place in the conceiving of Jesus by the Holy Spirit.

That's the typical way of reasoning by the people who claim the Biological Motherhood.

I do not rule out the possibility that the Genealogy in Luke be the one for Mary, but there is other possibilities too because of the Bible expression which doesn't mention Mary but Joseph.

That is not very critical question in this discussion as it doesn't fix the Biological motherhood but even Surrogacy could have the genealogy.

When we mention the Surrogacy, the Surrogacy of Mary is unique and different from the usual human surrogacy.
In case of the human surrogacy, it is often a shame caused by the fertility problem etc. However, in this case, Surrogacy is a great honor as it means that Mary received Jesus Christ bodily in her, the sinless person was launched there, and there would be no problem with the Biological Mother as there will be no Bio mother either. Therefore this Surrogacy is absolutely unique and different from all the other Surrogacy.
Therefore it is not a matter about whether Mary takes the honor or not.

The Core issue remains all the time about " Word became Flesh" and about whether the Sin-stricken ovum can produce a spotless, blemish body of Christ for sinless sacrifice or not.
In both reasons, Biological Motherhood is far beyond Biblical Truth.

 

[Brother Bob]

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,

HP: I find no such thing mentioned in these verses. Heli is said to be the father of Joseph, not Mary. He was, just as they supposed. The problem is that they did not understand the process that took place in the conceiving of Jesus by the Holy Spirit.

Seems we do not either...........

BBob,

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: 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"

HP: A good starting place then would be to accept the Word of God in that Jesus was the son of Joseph as both genealogies set forth plainly.

 

[Brother Bob]

HP: I could not disagree with you more on that issue. ‘He was, just as they supposed,’ is the direct implication from the translators. If he was not, he had no right to be an heir to the throne of David.

Can you show by scripture where Joseph was the father of Jesus??

BBob,

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BB: Seems we do not either...........

HP: There are many important things we both understand clearly and agree upon. I am thankful for that!!:thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

SFIC: God's Word is true. God placed His Son in the womb of Mary, bypassing the natural.

HP: How about answering some of the direct questions in the OP? By the way, we have many things in agreement as well, this issue being an exception to the rule. :thumbs:

 

[Eliyahu]

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,

You cannot explain Word became Flesh properly.

The core portion of truth there is this:

The Invisible Truth became Visible Flesh.

Did the Egg become flesh?

Then it is Flesh became Flesh.

He didn't need a sperm or ovum, and therefore He chose not to use them because they were sin-stricken.

Simply The Word became Flesh.

 

[Brother Bob]

Mary did not pass the seed, BBob. Women have no seed to pass. Mary bore the Son of God, who was the seed prophesied of in Genesis 3:15.

I am sorry SFic for being slow to respond but been trying to keep up, walk the dog several time and shower.

I cannot separate the blood from the seed. My mother was a Thornsbury, and my father a Scott. You can just look at me and see both blood lines. I have half Thornsbury blood from my mother and half Scott blood from my father. I have Thornsbury seed from my mother, I have Scott seed from my father. I can't separate the two.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

You cannot explain Word became Flesh properly.

The core portion of truth there is this:

The Invisible Truth became Visible Flesh.

Did the Egg become flesh?

Then it is Flesh became Flesh.

He didn't need a sperm or ovum, and therefore He chose not to use them because they were sin-stricken.

Simply The Word became Flesh.

Please explain why He used a virgin named "Mary", who was the seed of David.

Why did He have to use anyone according to your theory.......

BBob,

 

[Eliyahu]

I am starting to doubt about the intention behind the rejection of Incarnation ( Word became Flesh)


Jesus Christ the Creator of Universe and Nations, who made the universe by Word, cannot make His body for Himself by Word?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: Can you show by scripture where Joseph was the father of Jesus??

HP: When one rejects two clear genealogies given to us by God that state clearly that Joseph was the father of Jesus, although not by any intercourse between Joseph and Mary, can one reasonably expect God to offer better evidence? I think not.

 

[Eliyahu]

Please explain why He used a virgin named "Mary", who was the seed of David.

Where is Mary in Luke's genealogy?

Why did He have to use anyone according to your theory.......
BBob,

If the Genealogy of Luke is the Mother side of Joseph, then it supplements the genealogy of Joseph because Joseph is important as the descendant of David, so both the families of Joseph's father and mother were the descendants of David which fulfills the prophecy. One may argue with Jeremiah 22:31 but it is talking about the earthly kingdom.

This is equally a conjecture as your theory of Mary genealogy. We do not build up any doctrine or theology based on the conjecture or guesswork.
It doesn't tell us that the seed of Mary was fertilized with the Word of God or Ovum of Mary became the flesh of Jesus. You can emphasize the genealogy of Mary as the fulfillment of the prophecy, but it can be proven as the Surrogacy too, and the Surrogacy is not less important than the Biological motherhood at all.

 

[Eliyahu]

The OP itself is not the Biblical Wording.

But I would simply answer this way.

Jesus Christ was born of Mary, the virgin at that time.

Jesus Christ Himself was the Word of God.

The Word of God became Flesh.

Jesus Christ HImself is the God who showed up to Abraham and Jacob in flesh and created the universe by Word.

He could create the flesh if He wanted any time too.

He was the second Adam who came to the world to save the Adam's race by entering the Adam's race. He didn't pick up any sinful nature of the human beings, nor the sin stricken body of the sinners.

I am convinced that Jesus didn't offer the Blood of Leukmia nor of Down Syndrome, nor of any other defects.


Jesus offered the sinless, blemish body for the sacrifice.

 

[Brother Bob]

HP: When one rejects two clear genealogies given to us by God that state clearly that Joseph was the father of Jesus, although not by any intercourse between Joseph and Mary, can one reasonably expect God to offer better evidence? I think not.

I am not rejecting anything. It plainly says that Joseph was the husband of Mary who was the mother of Jesus. It does not say that Joseph is the father of Jesus. The words "as was supposed" were not put in there to take up space. You make one giant leap to make Joseph the father of Jesus, when Scripture teaches it was the Holy Ghost, and Joseph knew her not until Jesus was born.

BBob,