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

[standingfirminChrist]

Yet it's a traditional Christian belief until some recently came up with another theory.

You mean until someone discovered the truth that Mary's egg was not used. I notice you have yet to see it.

 

[DHK]

The invention of Mary's egg being in Scripture is just as ludicrous as this invention

Let's not get silly. Every woman produces their own eggs. Do you think that Mary remained ten years old or less all of her life? Not even the RCC goes that far!

 

[donnA]

Please post scripture that actually says sin is not passed through the woman but the man, because so far I have seen that, and a link of known and reputable theologians who also say sin does not come from women, or better yet, a scientist who is a christian.

 

[DHK]

Please post scripture that actually says sin is not passed through the woman but the man, because so far I have seen that, and a link of known and reputable theologians who also say sin does not come from women, or better yet, a scientist who is a christian.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Fact is every woman does produce her own eggs. The Bible does not say Mary's egg was used, so it is silly to say it was used.

While every woman produces her own eggs, no woman produces eggs every day of the month. So the 'every woman produces her own eggs' is a weak argument at best.

But again, the Word of God does not say Mary produced an egg and got pregnant, now does it.

That which is conceived in her is 'of the Holy Ghost'. It is not 'of Mary and the Holy Ghost.'

 

[donnA]

That does not say sin is passed only from a man to the woman into their child, that the child obtains no sin nature from it's mother, it says we have sin, sin nature, that sin, the sin nature, entered the world becasue of one man, if your use of these verses for this purpose were to make since, that one man would have to father each child. Becasue it simply does not include each man.

Still wondering if you have links.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Please post scripture that actually says sin is not passed through the woman but the man, because so far I have seen that, and a link of known and reputable theologians who also say sin does not come from women, or better yet, a scientist who is a christian.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Well, I reckon my wife, DonnA, and all other women are not sinners and don't have a sin nature. Thank you for clearing that up, DHK.

You are pushing the false Immaculate Conception doctrine by saying women do not pass the sin nature down.

If it truly were so, then every female child born would not have the nature to sin as the woman would not transfer the sin nature.

Of course the Word of God teaches us it was the woman who was disobedient first. So, man in the Romans 5 verses you provided is speaking of mankind as a whole, not the male species only.

I will believe the Word of God rather than DHK.

 

[donnA]

Well, I reckon my wife, DonnA, and all other women are not sinners and don't have a sin nature. Thank you for clearing that up, DHK

oh wow, thanks sfic and dhk, now I just need to tell my husband that.

 

[Amy.G]

If the sin nature entered through Adam, and only the male passes it on through his offspring, then how did Eve get a sin nature?

If we clone a woman, would we have a perfect, sinless person???

 

[DHK]

Fact is every woman does produce her own age. The Bible does not say Mary's egg was used, so it is silly to say it was used.

SFIC, words have meanings. The Bible doesn't use the word trnity, but it teaches it. The Bible uses the word seed. The Bible uses the word conception or conceived which can only refer to an egg being fertilized. So yes the Bible refers to an egg being fertilized. Don't say that it doesn't.

While every woman produces her own eggs, no woman produces eggs every day of the month. So the 'every woman produces her own eggs' is a weak argument at best.

My wife laughs when she reads some of your posts. You ought to keep out of the area of Biology. Mary was not a ten year old or younger; and neither was she 50 years or older, as I think you are inferring here. Why not stay in the realm of common sense instead of reaching into the absurd to defend an indefensible position. If you like I will quote from a Biology book for you:

Human ovaries are solid organs about the size and shape of large almonds. They are held against the lower side walls of the pelvic cavity by ligaments. Unlike sperm production, which begins at puberty and continues throughout lfie, at birth there may be 200,000 immature ova in each ovary. At the rate of a few each month for about 35 years of the woman's adlult life, these will begin to mature. Most often the two ovaries alternate, one producing an ovum one month and the other the next. (Biology for Christian Schools, BJU Press)

But again, the Word of God does not say Mary produced an egg and got pregnant, now does it.

He that ears to hear, let him hear.
The Bible is clear on the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ: born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit (conceived always referring to the fertilization of an egg).

That which is conceived in her is 'of the Holy Ghost'. It is not 'of Mary and the Holy Ghost.'

What are you advocating? I don't see anyone else in the picture other than Mary and the Holy Spirit. The only other option is a denial of the virgin birth of Christ. Is that what you believe?

 

[donnA]

Good post Amy.

 

[donnA]

original quote has been deleted

Just how do you get this?

Saying that God put Jesus into Mary is not denying the virigin birth, I see no one saying Mary was not a virgin.
Your insults and attacks as a moderator seem to be getting out of hand. Maybe you need to step back a while from the discussion and cool off.

 

[DHK]

Well, I reckon my wife, DonnA, and all other women are not sinners and don't have a sin nature. Thank you for clearing that up, DHK.

Why do you post silly things without Scriptural evidence. I gave you Scripture and you just poke fun of it. What kind of answer is that? Do you take pleasure in poking fun at the Word of God?
Was your wife born of a virgin without the help of a man? As well as the other women that you mention? Why do you make such absurd statements? The only one born of a virgin (and thus able to escape the sin nature) is Jesus Christ. Your post makes no logical sense.

You are pushing the false Immaculate Conception doctrine by saying women do not pass the sin nature down.

I was a Catholic for many years and I know what the IC teaches. I don't come any where close to the teaching of the Immaculate Conception.

If it truly were so, then every female child born would not have the nature to sin as the woman would not transfer the sin nature.

"for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Can you believe that?

Of course the Word of God teaches us it was the woman who was disobedient first. So, man in the Romans 5 verses you provided is speaking of mankind as a whole, not the male species only.

So you believe in an unnatural comparison between "mankind" and Jesus Christ, rather than a natural comparison between the first man, Adam, and the second man, Christ. Context demands that the first man referred to is Adam himself, or don't you like to read the chapter.

 

[Amy.G]

Just how do you get this?

Saying that God put Jesus into Mary is not denying the virigin birth, I see no one saying Mary was not a virgin.
Your insults and attacks as a moderator seem to be getting out of hand. Maybe you need to step back a while from the discussion and cool off.

You beat me to it. I don't see how believing that God made a body for Christ without Mary's egg is denying she was a virgin.

 

[DHK]

You beat me to it. I don't see how believing that God made a body for Christ without Mary's egg is denying she was a virgin.

This statement in itself seems to me to be a straightforward denial of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ;

That which is conceived in her is 'of the Holy Ghost'. It is not 'of Mary and the Holy Ghost.'

What else would one conclude from this statement, for what does the Scripture say:

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.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I have never once denied that the virgin Mary gave birth to the Lord Jesus Christ. I have attested to the fact that God prepared Him a body and placed Him in the womb.

Mary's egg does not have to be used for that for the miracle of the virgin birth to take place. As a matter of fact, the Bible never once infers that it was used. But it does emphatically state that the Word became flesh. It does not say it became a sperm cell that fertilized one of Mary's eggs.

Your attacks against those who stand for truth are uncalled for. You constantly slander my character for stating what the Word of God says; accusing me of everything from heresy to spaceship theories and now to denying the virgin birth.

DHK, you need help.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

What else would one conclude from this statement, for what does the Scripture say

DHK, do you know what that little two letter word 'in' means? That which is in her... in where? in Mary.

I never denied the virgin birth.

You really are grasping to slam my character.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Adam refers to both man and woman, DHK. Or do you not believe Genesis 5:2?

Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Both were called Adam because they were one flesh.

By one man's disobedience. Even disobeyed first. She was the Adam spoken of in Romans 5.

 

[DHK]

I have never once denied that the virgin Mary gave birth to the Lord Jesus Christ. I have attested to the fact that God prepared Him a body and placed Him in the womb.

That is a denial of a virgin birth isn't it. For a virgin didn't conceive, according to the prophecy given in Isa.7:14. The embyo didn't come in a spaceship and was plunked down in a womb somehow. No, Mary conceived, just as the Scriptures tell us. Why is it so hard to believe the Bible.

Mary's egg does not have to be used for that for the miracle of the virgin birth to take place. As a matter of fact, the Bible never once infers that it was used. But it does emphatically state that the Word became flesh. It does not say it became a sperm cell that fertilized one of Mary's eggs.

The Bible does refer to Mary's eggs, but not to any sperm. However fertilization is also referred to, but in a miraculous way. Doesn't the phrase "conceived by the Holy Spirit" mean anything to you?

Your attacks against those who stand for truth are uncalled for. You constantly slander my character for stating what the Word of God says; accusing me of everything from heresy to spaceship theories and now to denying the virgin birth.

When you make a bold statement to the effect that

That which is conceived in her is 'of the Holy Ghost'. It is not 'of Mary and the Holy Ghost.'

That is heresy. and perhaps you are the one that needs the help. In that one statement you have denied the virgin birth.

 

[DHK]

DHK, do you know what that little two letter word 'in' means? That which is in her... in where? in Mary.

I never denied the virgin birth.

"It (his birth) is not of Mary and of the Holy Ghost" is a denial of the virgin birth.