Was Mary a Biological Mother or a Surrogate Mother for Jesus?

[DHK]

No more than to say Mary provided an egg.

Isaiah 7:14 states that Mary did so, if you understand conception.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

SFIC: No more than to say Mary provided an egg in light of the fact that Scripture says nothing of Mary's egg either.

HP: You must have at least been raised on a farm.:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

HP: No, it would not. No intercourse was involved by man period, so Mary indeed was a virgin just as Scripture states.

What necessarily does sperm have to do with intercourse? I suppose if one cannot make sperm it is impossible in your mind to have intercourse? I suppose that if the Holy Spirit choose to use the sperm of man to impregnate Mary, the Holy Spirit was committing fornication in your mind?

I believe we could use some farmers on this list.:laugh:

I believe you can elevate this discussion to a higher level of intelligence. Some of your comments are unwarranted.

This is what Luke describes:
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.

From that description you can deduce what happened, but do not make an argument from silence. Do not make unwarranted suppostions.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Nowhere does Isaiah 7:14 say Mary would provide an egg. You are trying to explain 'a virgin shall conceive' using the natural mind and thinking process rather than look at the supernatural.

It was not a natural conception in the least.

 

[Brother Bob]

Blood line was very important to God and Israel and it was through Mary that Jesus received his blood line to King David. Mary did conceive and bare a Son. A surrogate does not conceive.

BBob,

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I believe you can elevate this discussion to a higher level of intelligence. Some of your comments are unwarranted.

HP: Please take us there. You can start by treating the others arguments fairly instead of simply reading into the other comments purely unfounded, unjust, and false conclusions, and then calling them heretical on the basis of those unfair and false accusations.

 

[DHK]

Nowhere does Isaiah 7:14 say Mary would provide an egg. You are trying to explain 'a virgin shall conceive' using the natural mind and thinking process rather than look at the supernatural.

It was not a natural conception in the least.

It wasn't a "spaceship" implantation either SFIC :laugh:
In this context conception has only one meaning, and it ain't "spaceship implantation." God didn't shoot an arrow through space with an embryo on the end destined to Mary's womb.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Blood line was very important to God and Israel and it was through Mary that Jesus received his blood line to King David. Mary did conceive and bare a Son. A surrogate does not conceive.

BBob,

Bob, look it up in medical journals. Surrogates do conceive.

Christ was not of the bloodline of man. He was born to Mary because God placed Him in Mary's womb.

 

[Linda64]

I can answer for me - Christ's flesh was not sinful. My flesh is not sinful - it is the nature inside me that's sinful. If it were my corporeal flesh that was sinful, then I'd do best to just kill my sinful body and thus be free from sin. But would that leave a body that was still sinful? However, my flesh IS subject to corruption - subject to pain, injury and death. Jesus had such a flesh - one that was subject to physical corruption just like us. In the fact that He did not have the sinful nature but instead had His Divine nature, that is why Scripture says that He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Meditate on these verses and tell me if Jesus' flesh was sinful and corruptible:

Psalms 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Jesus Christ didn't "partake" of our flesh and blood, but "took part", which means that His flesh was NOT sinful flesh like ours, but "in the likeness of our sinful flesh."

Hebrews 7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Separate from sinners? With corruptible flesh?

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

1 Peter 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

1 Peter 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

How could Jesus do all this having a corruptible body? Was it possible for Him to bare our sins in His own body if that body was corruptible?

1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

1 Peter 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Jesus Christ was totally incorruptible, sent in the "likeness of sinful flesh" undefiled and separte from sinners. He is the eternal Son of God. He became "sin" for us...He took our place on the cross and died the death we deserved. He could not have been our perfect and sinless sacrifice if He had corruptible flesh. In the O.T. the animal sacrifices had to be "without spot or blemish". Check it out.

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob, look it up in medical journals. Surrogates do conceive.

Christ was not of the bloodline of man. He was born to Mary because God placed Him in Mary's womb.

You are right Sfic; surrogates do conceive.

And Mary was of David's blood line. Moses give a law if there were not brothers then the sisters received the inheritance of their fathers and Mary seemed to have no brothers. If it were not God's plan for Jesus to be of the blood line of David, He could of just had Jesus appear on the earth. Why make Him go through birth, childhood and then manhood, don't make sense. Christ was 100 percent man and 100 percent God. Why put "binds" on God, of which He has no bonds. Why would it be a great thing for God to use Mary a virgin, to conceive and bare a Son, of the Holy Ghost. God had a purpose in doing so, that He might have a body likened unto ours, but without sin.

Scripture says He was of David's seed.

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

BBob,

 

[DHK]

HP: Please take us there. You can start by treating the others arguments fairly instead of simply reading into the other comments purely unfounded, unjust, and false conclusions, and then calling them heretical on the basis of those unfair and false accusations.

I (and Ann) have posted Scripture after Scripture. They go unanswered.
Your form of argument is: suppose, Could it be, What if, etc.
It is entirely an argument based on supposition and from silence. You have no Scripture to base your arguments on, and what you do say totally contradicts the historic orthodox view on the virgin birth which has been held by Christians down throughout 20 centuries of Christianity. The Catholics are sitting back and laughing while Baptists on the board are coming so very close to denying the virgin birth of Christ, if they haven't already.

Where are those of whom Jude spoke of: "earnestly contend for the faith;" not for unproveable suppositions, hypotheses, and guesswork.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: And Mary was of David's blood line.

HP: Where is your evidence for that?

 

[DHK]

HP: Where is your evidence for that?

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.
son of Heli
In Matthew, where unquestionably we have the genealogy of Joseph, we are told Mt 1:16, that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In what sense, then, could he be called in Luke "the son of Heli"? He could not be by natural generation the son both of Jacob and of Heli. But in Luke it is not said that Heli begat Joseph, so that the natural explanation is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, who was, like himself, a descendant of David. That he should in that case be called "son of Heli" ("son" is not in the Greek, but rightly supplied by the translators) would be in accord with Jewish usage.

(CF) 1Sa 24:16 The conclusion is therefore inevitable that in Luke we have Mary's genealogy; and Joseph was "son of Heli" because espoused to Heli's daughter. The genealogy in Luke is Mary's, whose father, Heli, was descended from David.

The above is from Scofield's notes. Now consider the Scripture in question:

Luke 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,

Luke 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

 

[standingfirminChrist]

You are right Sfic; surrogates do conceive.

And Mary was of David's blood line. Moses give a law if there were not brothers then the sisters received the inheritance of their fathers and Mary seemed to have no brothers. If it were not God's plan for Jesus to be of the blood line of David, He could of just had Jesus appear on the earth. Why make Him go through birth, childhood and then manhood, don't make sense. Christ was 100 percent man and 100 percent God. Why put "binds" on God, of which He has no bonds. Why would it be a great thing for God to use Mary a virgin, to conceive and bare a Son, of the Holy Ghost. God had a purpose in doing so, that He might have a body likened unto ours, but without sin.

Scripture says He was of David's seed.

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

BBob,

If you would carefully read my posts, you would find I do not deny Christ was born to Mary.. I do deny Mary's egg was used, for if it were, Christ would have been born in flesh blemished by sinful man.

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

The only one who is able to bring the clean thing out of the unclean is God. It would be impossible to mix the clean and unclean to produce that which is clean. The clean would be tainted by the unclean.

Tell me, Bob. When you do your laundry, can you take a clean shirt and throw them in amongst the dirty ones without the clean one smelling of the dirty?

 

[Brother Bob]

HP: Where is your evidence for that?

Apparently being there are two lineages of Jesus, one in Matt, which seems to be the Linage of Joseph.
There is another linage which comes from Nathan the brother of Solomon and son of King David to Jesus, which I believe to be the linage of Mary to Jesus.

They both can't be right, unless one writer assuming Joseph to be the father of Jesus gave one and the other gave the linage of Mary. IMO

BBob,

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Where are those of whom Jude spoke of: "earnestly contend for the faith;" not for unproveable suppositions, hypotheses, and guesswork.

HP: Your own ideas are based on conjecture DHK. For you to point at me, as if I am the only one suggesting possibilities or what if’s is simply absurd. Certainly you have posted several Scriptures, but the problem remains that they do not establish ‘evidence’ for your assertions. There is a whole lot Scripture does not tell us and even if it did we most likely could not understand it concerning the Incarantion of Christ.

Speaking of conjecture, unprovable suppositions, guesswork, and what if’s, one thing that I am certain of is that God would not lie to the Jews concerning the lineage of Joseph, the father of Jesus, while granting the real revelation of truth to only us as believers. God is not a man that He should lie. If He said that Jesus's lineage was tracable through Joseph to David, it is. That is Scripturally evident.

 

[annsni]

HP: Where is your evidence for that?

Not to mention that if Mary were not of the lineage of David, then Jesus was not the Messiah.

 

[Brother Bob]

If you would carefully read my posts, you would find I do not deny Christ was born to Mary.. I do deny Mary's egg was used, for if it were, Christ would have been born in flesh blemished by sinful man.

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

The only one who is able to bring the clean thing out of the unclean is God. It would be impossible to mix the clean and unclean to produce that which is clean. The clean would be tainted by the unclean.

Tell me, Bob. When you do your laundry, can you take a clean shirt and throw them in amongst the dirty ones without the clean one smelling of the dirty?

Scripture says, He is of the "seed" of David. I have to go by the word. If you can show me where in scripture He was not of David's seed, then I will consider it.

God had a reason to pick a virgin, which is known to God why. God caused Heaven and Earth to come together to produce His Son. Earth is His footstool.

Can you explain this scripture for me SFIC..
Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;


BBob,

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Scripture says, He is of the "seed" of David. I have to go by the word. If you can show me where in scripture He was not of David's seed, then I will consider it.

God had a reason to pick a virgin, which is known to God why. God caused Heaven and Earth to come together to produce His Son. Earth is His footstool.

BBob,

from 4687; something sown, i.e. seed (including the male "sperm"); by implication, offspring; specially, a remnant (figuratively, as if kept over for planting):--issue, seed.

Bob, women don't have seed, the male does. So sperm cell would have to be ruled out. the only clear meaning of the word 'seed' in 'seed of David' would have to mean offspring or remnant.

Seed is carried by the father, not the mother. Who was the Father? God was! So, seed of David cannot mean of David's biological sperm cells.

It is plain as day seed is the offspring or remnant.

 

[Eliyahu]

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?