The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us ( Jn 1:14)

[DHK]

The Greek word for “prepared” is a strong word, connoting something like “made perfect” in most of its occurrences. It is used only one other time in Hebrews, in the very next chapter. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God”. This correlation assures us that God “prepared” the human body of His Son, to be placed in Mary’s virgin womb with the same perfect wisdom and care with which He had “framed” the worlds. Both were made “very good,” perfectly designed, created, and made to accomplish His great eternal plan. - Dr. Henry Morris

Maybe Morris is not being as thorough in his research as he should be, or he is being deliberately biased.
Thye word kataridzo, is used 13 times in the NT. It is translated: perfect, make perfect, mend, be perfect, frame, prepare, restore, "perfectly joined together." There is a plethora of definitions for this word depending on the context in which it is used. Out of these 13 times the only time that it is translated "prepare" is in Heb.10:5. So you have a very weak argument there.
Morris seems to be arguing his opinion rather than from Scripture.

The strongest argument yet is what Matt simply said:
Christ was begotten; not created.
Remember what John 3:16 says.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Maybe Morris is not being as thorough in his research as he should be, or he is being deliberately biased.
Thye word kataridzo, is used 13 times in the NT. It is translated: perfect, make perfect, mend, be perfect, frame, prepare, restore, "perfectly joined together." There is a plethora of definitions for this word depending on the context in which it is used. Out of these 13 times the only time that it is translated "prepare" is in Heb.10:5. So you have a very weak argument there.
Morris seems to be arguing his opinion rather than from Scripture.

The strongest argument yet is what Matt simply said:
Christ was begotten; not created.
Remember what John 3:16 says.

Since begotten means born, and not conception, I have no problem with agreeing He was begotten.

Begotten in no way disproves God's truth that Mary's egg was not used.

 

[DHK]

Thus, His conception necessarily involved the special creation of the cell placed by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb.

Whether it was a cell, an embryo, a zygote, a two month old fetus, or a full term nine month old baby, that God created, Morris says "he created." That infers that Christ was a created being which is a heresy. He is not a created being. He was begotten. He was conceived (Isa.7:14), not created. All of this goes directly contrary to Scripture. Christ, in no way, was created.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

The Son of God Himself was not created... but the body God prepared Him was. It was created within the womb of Mary.

I am sorry you cannot see this wonderful truth.

 

[DHK]

The Son of God Himself was not created... but the body God prepared Him was. It was created within the womb of Mary.

I am sorry you cannot see this wonderful truth.

It is not a wonderful truth; it is an aberrant theology. Nowhere does the Bible teach that Christ (even in his body) was created.

 

[BobRyan]

Since begotten means born, and not conception, I have no problem with agreeing He was begotten.

Begotten in no way disproves God's truth that Mary's egg was not used.

Lots of "begats" scripture. Pretty hard to claim 'incarnation' for all of them

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Lots of "begats" scripture. Pretty hard to claim 'incarnation' for all of them

Big difference between begotten of men and begotten of God.

 

[Linda64]

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

About Whom is this verse speaking, and how does God prepare this "body"?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Nowhere does the Bible teach that Christ (even in his body) was created.

Nowhere does the Bible teach that Mary's egg was used for the conception of Christ. It is an aberrant theology.

 

[DHK]

Nowhere does the Bible teach that Mary's egg was used for the conception of Christ. It is an aberrant theology.

1. The word conceived is used more than once (Isa.7:14; Mat.1:20). Conception always involves a fertilized egg. You do not have the right to change definitions of words at your own whim and will just to fit an unbiblical theology.

2. Suppose God put "whatever" into Mary's womb sometime later. Then what? Then Christ would not be fully man. He would be missing part of his humanity. In order to be completely man, to fulfill the requirements of "taking on flesh," and becoming man "in the likeness of sinful flesh" he would need to be conceived of a virgin, that is to start life where every person starts life--right from the very beginning. Otherwise you are denying a part of his humanity. You take away from his humanity.

3. He is the only begotten Son of God. He is begotten not created. You have suggested that he is a created being, when indeed he is the Creator. The Creator is not the created. He humbled himself.

Philippians 2:6-8 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

As long as you continue to try explain the supernatural conception by the natural conception, you will never receive the full truth of the conception of the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

To you, it is foolishness to say Mary conceived without her egg being used. To those who understand that miraculous event of the conception of Christ as being totally of God and not of man, it is not foolishness at all.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

1. The word conceived is used more than once (Isa.7:14; Mat.1:20). Conception always involves a fertilized egg. You do not have the right to change definitions of words at your own whim and will just to fit an unbiblical theology.

2. Suppose God put "whatever" into Mary's womb sometime later. Then what? Then Christ would not be fully man. He would be missing part of his humanity. In order to be completely man, to fulfill the requirements of "taking on flesh," and becoming man "in the likeness of sinful flesh" he would need to be conceived of a virgin, that is to start life where every person starts life--right from the very beginning. Otherwise you are denying a part of his humanity. You take away from his humanity.

3. He is the only begotten Son of God. He is begotten not created. You have suggested that he is a created being, when indeed he is the Creator. The Creator is not the created. He humbled himself.

Philippians 2:6-8 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

1. Mary conceived. But her conception did not require an egg. For God prepared Him a body. Mary fulfilled the prophecy spoken of by Jeremiah who said, 'a woman shall compass a man.'

2. Had God waited until the day of delivery, He is God. He could have spoke and that holy thing would have been a holy child at full term... had He so desired. God placed in Mary's womb that body which He had prepared for His Son.

3. Christ was in a flesh body. It was a created body that God created. The psalmist wrote that God would in the future 'create a people.' You, I, everyone else is a created being. That body God's Son was seen in was created by God... framed by God himself. Fashioned by the Father.
_____________________________________________________________________
Phil. 2:7 no reputation. That is, He “emptied Himself.” The Greek word is kenoo, and this self-emptying of Christ has been called the “kenosis” doctrine. Certain liberals have suggested that He became human in the sense that He was fallible, possibly even sinful, but such thinking is wrong and dangerous. He not only “came down from heaven,” He was still “in heaven” (John 3:13). He was not sent down from heaven in sinful flesh, but only in “the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3). He was “made in the likeness of men” with a miraculously created human body that inherited nothing whatever of Adam’s sinful nature. Even though He exchanged the outward form of God for that of a human slave, He never stopped being “very God of very God,” as the old creed expressed it. -- Dr Henry Morris

 

[DHK]

As long as you continue to try explain the supernatural conception by the natural conception, you will never receive the full truth of the conception of the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

To you, it is foolishness to say Mary conceived without her egg being used. To those who understand that miraculous event of the conception of Christ as being totally of God and not of man, it is not foolishness at all.

1. I resent you questioning my salvation. That is clearly against BB rules.
2. For you to change the meanings of words to fit your own theology is unethical to say the least. It shows the distance that you will go to try to prove a point that is not Scriptural. For one to conceive one must have a fertilized egg. There is no way around that. For you to say "But God can do..." is a statement of unbelief. God can make black, white, and red, blue. He can do as he wishes but he doesn't. He only does that which is according to his nature and according to His Word.

3.
a. By quoting 1Cor.2:14 you have inferred that I am not saved.
b. You have said that I will never receive the full truth.
c. You have said that I believe in foolishness.

You cannot refute the Scripture I have given you so you have resorted to name calling. This is one post where I am very tempted to call another moderator in.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I did not question your salvation. Read my post again. And this time, read it without that thought that I am.

Paul was speaking to the carnal Christians at the Church at Corinth. They were saved, and yet, he told them when they tried to reason out supernaturally (things of the Spirit) with their natural minds (the natural man), they would not be able to receive those truths God wanted them to see.

We are not perfect in our bodies. The flesh wars against the Spirit. Until we stop trying to equate the spiritual as being natural, we will never understand God's truths to their full extent.

 

[Linda64]

Jeremiah 31:21 Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps: set thine heart toward the highway, even the way which thou wentest: turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities.

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

Jeremiah 31:22

31:22 created a new thing. This “new thing” can be nothing less than the coming miraculous conception and virgin birth of the promised Savior. The word for “compass” means “enclose,” and no other interpretation of this promise would involve a “new thing.” Note the reference also to a “virgin of Israel” in the preceding verse. The following verses lead to the great promise of the “new covenant” in Jeremiah 31:31 and following.

Defender's Bible Notes: Jeremiah 31:22

Jesus Christ, Lord of Lords and King of Kings, became a Man. His sinless body was CREATED within the womb of the virgin Mary. He never ceased to be God. He is the Eternal Son of God--He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending...Who was, and Who is, and Who is to come, the Almighty.

God formed (created) the first Adam from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:6) and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) and man became a living soul.

The body of Jesus Christ was a body of flesh and blood, like ours, EXCEPT for sin, for He was sent in the "likeness of sinful flesh"... His body was created/formed/developed/grew etc., within the womb of the VIRGIN Mary. Jesus Christ was not conceived in the same way in which all of us are conceived--using a sperm and an egg. His conception was totally supernatural...without ANY human intervention.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

1. I resent you questioning my salvation. That is clearly against BB rules.
2. For you to change the meanings of words to fit your own theology is unethical to say the least. It shows the distance that you will go to try to prove a point that is not Scriptural. For one to conceive one must have a fertilized egg. There is no way around that. For you to say "But God can do..." is a statement of unbelief. God can make black, white, and red, blue. He can do as he wishes but he doesn't. He only does that which is according to his nature and according to His Word.

3.
a. By quoting 1Cor.2:14 you have inferred that I am not saved.
b. You have said that I will never receive the full truth.
c. You have said that I believe in foolishness.

You cannot refute the Scripture I have given you so you have resorted to name calling. This is one post where I am very tempted to call another moderator in. __________________
DHK

1. I never questioned your salvation... not sure where you got the idea that I did.
2. In the natural conception process, one has to contribute an egg in order to conceive. We are not talking of a natural conception here.
3. a. Again, not sure where you get the idea that I am inferring you are not saved. b. As long as you, me, my wife, or even the most learned man on the face of this earth try to reason out the supernatural by giving it an element of the natural, we miss the picture that God is trying to show us. I never inferred you were not saved. c. It is foolish to say Mary's egg was used when the Word of God does not say it was.

Name calling? Can you point me to the post where I called you a name? Come on now, DHK. I never called you a name whatsoever.

I have refuted the belief that Mary's egg was used. I have used Scripture to do so. You have not shown with Scripture that it was not, you have only stated your belief that it was.

 

[DHK]

1. I never questioned your salvation... not sure where you got the idea that I did.

In direct response to my post you quoted this verse to me:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

In other words you called me:
1. A natural man (i.e., unsaved)
2. One who does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.
3. One who thinks that the things of the Spirit of God are foolishness.
4. One who cannot know the things of the Spirit of God.
5. One who is spiritually discerned.

I find that condemnation by you very insulting.

2. In the natural conception process, one has to contribute an egg in order to conceive. We are not talking of a natural conception here.

Why do you insist on changing the meaning of words just to suit your own theology.
Jesus wept. He actually shed tears. He was human.
Jesus hungered. He felt the need for food. He was human.
Jesus thirsted. He felt the need to drink. He was human.
Jesus was weary. He tired. He was human.
Jesus was born of a virgin, conceived of the Holy Spirit. He was human.
A virgin conceived and bore a son, Jesus. he was human.
Conception involves a fertilized egg. He was human.
In every way Christ was fully human. In every way Christ was fully God. At no time did Christ ever lose any part of his deity. He was the perfect, sinless Man-God.

To take away any part of his "early pregnancy" is to take away part of his humanity. In all points he was tested as we are. Where does "all points" start from? From his ministry at 30 years of age? From the age of 12 when he was in the Temple? from the age of one? from birth? or from conception? I believe the latter to be the truth. Don't take away from his humanity.

3. a. Again, not sure where you get the idea that I am inferring you are not saved.

Read your own post. Why do you refer to me as "the natural man" that understands not the things of the Spirit of God? That is a pretty obvious reference to one who is not saved. It is insulting.

b. As long as you, me, my wife, or even the most learned man on the face of this earth try to reason out the supernatural by giving it an element of the natural, we miss the picture that God is trying to show us. I never inferred you were not saved. c. It is foolish to say Mary's egg was used when the Word of God does not say it was.

The Lord said that Mary conceived. That means a fertilized egg was used. Surely you don't need a biology lesson?? And don't dismiss it by saying that simply because the supernatural was involved we can change the meaning of the word conception. It doesn't work that way. Just because you can't understand the trinity doesn't mean you get to change the meaning of the trinity. That is what you are doing.

Name calling? Can you point me to the post where I called you a name? Come on now, DHK. I never called you a name whatsoever.

Yes, I gave you a full post where you used a number of adjectives. Go back and refer to previous posts.

I have refuted the belief that Mary's egg was used. I have used Scripture to do so. You have not shown with Scripture that it was not, you have only stated your belief that it was.

Saying "no it is not Mary's egg," is not a refutation at all. It is a childish response. You fail to deal with words. Words have meanings. A virgin shall conceive.
Conceived by the Holy Spirit.
The word conceive means that a fertilized egg was involved. That is one thing you won't deal with.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

It was a supernatural event. That is the one thing you have a hard time dealing with.

I will not address the other accusations as I did that already.

I will say, that your accusing me of teaching an aberrant doctrine, and of teaching heresies, is questioning my Salvation... which is against the BB rules.

 

[DHK]

It was a supernatural event. That is the one thing you have a hard time dealing with.

I will not address the other accusations as I did that already.

I will say, that your accusing me of teaching an aberrant doctrine, and of teaching heresies, is questioning my Salvation... which is against the BB rules.

The virgin birth is a supernatural event. I have repeated that many times over, and have never denied it. The account in Luke makes it very clear how the Lord overshadowed Mary and the Holy Spirit came upon her. She was conceived of the Holy Spirit. That is obviously a supernatural event, and I have never denied it. God uses the natural even in the supernatural. That is what you have a hard time understanding. And in denying that fact you give in to heresy and attack the long held historic orthodox view of the virgin birth of Christ--that view which has been held down throughout the centuries.

Yes, you have an aberrant theology when it comes to the virgin birth. But that has nothing to do with your salvation. I in no way questioned your salvation as you called me unsaved. There are many differences in theology among Christians. Your take on the virgin birth is different than the historic view. You ought to swallow your pride and admit to at least that much.
If you can't see that, then why is your view the only one (besides Eliyahu) who doesn't believe that an egg was used that is posting on this thread? Why are you the only one that is different?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

The supernatural was more than a woman getting pregnant without a human male taking part. God prepared the body. He did not need the female egg in the preparation of the body. Scripture declares that God sent His Son. God prepared Him a body.

Had Mary's egg been used, Jesus would have had her DNA. He would have been born with a corruptible body. This would defeat the purpose of Him coming into the world. That which is corruptible cannot redeem the corruptible.

Mary's egg could not have been used.