• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

cowboymatt

New Member
Palatka51 said:
It is true that Augustine equated sex with original sin and that's a wrong interpretation of Romans 5:12. However Paul did clearly state that Adam was the progenitor of man's sin.

Romans 5:12-14
12Wherefore, 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:
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Shouldn't the above verses clear that up a bit?

This doesn't clear anything up. In fact it only states that death was passed down (which is the punishment for Adam's sin -- Gen 2.19) and that even people who did not break a command between Adam and Moses died. Where does this verse say that sex brings about original sin. Better yet, where does this verse even talk about original sin at all?

And as far as the Word becoming flesh is concerned, the point that John is making is that the Logos became flesh, not some imparted-from-God-specially-for-the-occasion flesh, but flesh just like all the rest of us. How could Jesus have been flesh had he not been from the egg of Mary and the seed of the H.S.?

And Jesus avoided that "stain" of Mary's sin because there is no biological link between sin and sex in the Bible. Those that think there is are reading their own theological understandings into the text -- eisegesis!

Also, Eliyahu many of your other claims are simply ludicrous. There was no adultery or mixing of seeds that would cause God to sin against his own law. That is simply ridiculous! And God is not omnipotent if he is limited by the attributes that humans have assigned to him. God is good, yes, not because he does what we say is good but because what he does is good. God is loving, yes, not because he does things that we call loving but because what he does is loving. Etc. That is a major distinction. In other words, we don't define God, he defines himself. To say otherwise is to put entirely too much faith in our limited and finite human words.
 

cowboymatt

New Member
What I am saying is that the work sarx means "flesh" and it is the same word used all throughout the NT to describe humanity, as well as sinful flesh. The Word became flesh, the same sort of flesh you and I have. The only way to get this sort of flesh is by the fertilization of an egg...and since Mary was a virgin, her egg was fertilized by the seed of the Holy Spirit. I'm not defining God, I am making the only logic conclusion based on the NT usage of the word sarx.
 

donnA

Active Member
DHK said:
This statement in itself seems to me to be a straightforward denial of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ;

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.

We all know Mary was a virgin, and no has denied this, you see to be making stuff up to accuse people of.
 

donnA

Active Member
DHK said:
And who, in the first century, had the technology available to them, to implant others with already fertilized egges in order to make them surrogate mothers? No one. That, of course, is recent technology that didn't exist in that century and thus the definition is ruled out.
GOD! unless you think He doesn't know everything.
 

donnA

Active Member
Matt Black said:
It seems pretty simple to me: Isaiah prophesied that a virgin would conceive. No woman can conceive other than through her own ovum being fertilised. It's pretty ludicrous to suggest that because 'conception' can = 'become pregnant' that that somehow allows for surrogacy in the Isaian prophecy. In surrogacy (as I understand the way some here are defining it), someone else conceives and the zygote or embryo is then implanted in another woman's womb. In no way can that 'carrying' woman be said to have 'conceived'. Scripture doesn't say that that happened: Isaiah 7:14 says "a virgin shall conceive", not "an embryo shall be miraculously conceived elsewhere and subsequently implanted into a virgin's womb".

Please rely on what Scripture actually says rather than adding to it to suit your theological agenda, people.

No woman under normal natural circumstances. But this was not normal natural circumstances.
 

donnA

Active Member
Doubting Thomas said:
Show me that verse again, the one that allegedly states that "everyone born from a human egg is born with 'the sin nature'". Thanks.

So apparently you beleive people are not born with the sin nature, they are born perfect. I've asked you before for scripture and you so far refuse.
 
cowboymatt said:
What I am saying is that the work sarx means "flesh" and it is the same word used all throughout the NT to describe humanity, as well as sinful flesh. The Word became flesh, the same sort of flesh you and I have. The only way to get this sort of flesh is by the fertilization of an egg...and since Mary was a virgin, her egg was fertilized by the seed of the Holy Spirit. I'm not defining God, I am making the only logic conclusion based on the NT usage of the word sarx.
Scripture nowhere says Mary's egg was used. Scripture nowhere says The Word connected itself to an egg and became Flesh.

Scripture says the Word became flesh.

Saying the Word had to fertilize an egg and then becomes flesh adds to the Word of God.
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
donnA said:
We all know Mary was a virgin, and no has denied this, you see to be making stuff up to accuse people of.

It is his old habit and custom from my observation for long time, which is a great pity and defect for Mod.
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
annsni said:
Can you show me where God has ever created flesh out of nothing?

Just as an egg is not a baby until it is fertilized, so the egg was not the Word until the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and made it so.

No - it's not a new theory. Your theory is the one that's new. I've shown that already.

Dear Ann,

Let's closely look at your statement and thoughts.

Egg becomes Word? Egg becomes Word only if Holy Spirit overshadow her?

YOur theory is Egg became Word ( who created the universe) and then Word became Flesh again?

My theory is not a new one but it existed since 100 AD when John wrote this:

Word became Flesh ( John 1:14)


The Word was the Creator of the universe, He was invisible Truth, but He showed up at the time of Abraham in Flesh, then showed up in flesh in tinier flesh in the body of Mary. Is it too difficult to fathom ?

My belief is not new, but the one millions of people believed since 1 century AD.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Eliyahu said:
Dear Ann,

Let's closely look at your statement and thoughts.

Egg becomes Word? Egg becomes Word only if Holy Spirit overshadow her?

YOur theory is Egg became Word ( who created the universe) and then Word became Flesh again?

My theory is not a new one but it existed since 100 AD when John wrote this:

Word became Flesh ( John 1:14)


The Word was the Creator of the universe, He was invisible Truth, but He showed up at the time of Abraham in Flesh, then showed up in flesh in tinier flesh in the body of Mary. Is it too difficult to fathom ?

My belief is not new, but the one millions of people believed since 1 century AD.

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.
 
annsni said:
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 have yet to show one verse that states that Mary contributed one of her ovum.

Mary did contribute something, she contributed her self as 'Thy handmaid'.

As pointed out, John knew the truth. The Word became flesh, not the Word and egg became flesh.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Did John know of ova?

The proof is in the entire text of the Word. God promised in His Word that the Messiah would be of the lineage of David, of the seed of Eve. The angel said to Mary that which is "conceived" in her would be of the Holy Spirit. Conceived doesn't mean put there - and there is no verse anywhere that says that God put a baby in Mary but that the Holy Spirit would overshadow her and she would conceive. The Word DID become flesh - because the Word became a baby that was conceived by Mary from the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. This is all from Scripture. You do not have one scripture that says that Jesus was born apart from Mary.

As I've stated before, the idea that Mary was a surrogate and not a biological mother to Jesus is a new teaching that is not of the Word of God. Not one church father, not one apostle, not one disciple of Christ taught it. I've shown renowned men of God who have said that the baby that was the Word was conceived from Mary's body and not just placed in Mary's body, and all you've posted is one man who believes in error. I'm sorry, but your belief does not hold water, does not follow prophecy or the Word of God. You are teaching another gospel because the Jesus of your belief is not of the line of David, not fully human and therefore not the Messiah who saves.
 
why is it so hard for people to believe that women did not know their bodies 2000 years ago?

They knew about sperma... odds are they knew about ovum as well.

The egg is not the seed. If it were, the Hebrew would clearly show it to be egg. It does not.
 
Last edited:
annsni said:
Did John know of ova?
Funny, you argue that Eve knew what seed was, yet John did not?

The proof is in the entire text of the Word. God promised in His Word that the Messiah would be of the lineage of David, of the seed of Eve.

The promise was not that the Messiah would be of the seed of Eve, but of 'a woman'. That woman spoken of was Mary. The seed was offspring, not egg.

Look up lineage. It does not mean bloodline as you have claimed. It means family. Because of Christ being born of the virgin Mary, he was born to her family. And yet, He was not born with the sinful flesh that mankind was born with because sinful flesh was not acceptable as a sacrifice.

The angel said to Mary that which is "conceived" in her would be of the Holy Spirit. Conceived doesn't mean put there - and there is no verse anywhere that says that God put a baby in Mary but that the Holy Spirit would overshadow her and she would conceive.
As already shown, concieved does not only mean the egg and the sperm cell become one and form a zygote. The Word of God declares God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Is a sperm cell made of flesh? Biology would tell you it is not. Sperm is needed to fertilize the female egg in order for that egg to become that which later becomes flesh.

So how did Mary get pregnant? God miraculously bypassed the natural biological process and placed His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh in her womb.

The Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh. It was like sinful flesh in all aspects except for one important detail... it was not sinful. If Mary had contributed her egg, then she would have contributed to the child's flesh, thereby making Him sinful as all mankind.

I'm sorry, but your belief does not hold water, does not follow prophecy or the Word of God. You are teaching another gospel because the Jesus of your belief is not of the line of David, not fully human and therefore not the Messiah who saves.
And now, annsni, you question my salvation as DHK did. The Word of God declares those who preach another gospel to be anathema. The Catholic Church were constantly accusing believers of this very same thing you are doing today.

If I am not mistaken, that is against the rules of the BB still.
 
Last edited:

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
standingfirminChrist said:
Funny, you argue that Eve knew what seed was, yet John did not?

Where did I say that Eve knew what seed was?


The promise was not that the Messiah would be of the seed of Eve, but of 'a woman'. That woman spoken of was Mary. The seed was offspring, not egg.

Look up lineage. It does not mean bloodline as you have claimed. It means family. Because of Christ being born of the virgin Mary, he was born to her family. And yet, He was not born with the sinful flesh that mankind was born with because sinful flesh was not acceptable as a sacrifice.


So anyone could have been a son of David if they were just adopted? You think that it would pass muster with God that the blood lineage wasn't important? I think it's pretty easy to see if you read Scripture just how important bloodlines were.

As already shown, concieved does not only mean the egg and the sperm cell become one and form a zygote. The Word of God declares God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Is a sperm cell made of flesh? Biology would tell you it is not. Sperm is needed to fertilize the female egg in order for that egg to become that which later becomes flesh.

A sperm cell is not made of flesh. And can't God make an egg fertilized without a sperm? I know that God is powerful enough to do that.

So how did Mary get pregnant? God miraculously bypassed the natural biological process and placed His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh in her womb.

God miraculously bypassed the natural biological process and caused the egg to be fertilized by no human and for the Word to become flesh.

The Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh. It was like sinful flesh in all aspects except for one important detail... it was not sinful. If Mary had contributed her egg, then she would have contributed to the child's flesh, thereby making Him sinful as all mankind.

You keep saying this but it is not supported by Scripture. Give me a verse please.


And now, annsni, you question my salvation as DHK did. The Word of God declares those who preach another gospel to be anathema. The Catholic Church were constantly accusing believers of this very same thing you are doing today.

If I am not mistaken, that is against the rules of the BB still.

I have not questioned your salvation but the lies that you are speaking. You have done the same for me and others on other topics - why is it when it's directed at you, you suddenly get your dander up? I'm following God's Word and not adding to it or taking away from it. I have shown where it is the well accepted belief that Mary had a contribution to the conception of the flesh of Jesus and you have not. So I say that what you are teaching is not the Word of God.
 
or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? which suggests a doctrine that Job as firmly believed as Bildad did, that all men are unclean by natural generation, or as they are born into the world; their ancestors being such, the more immediate, and the more remote, which may be traced back to the first man and woman, Job 14:4; so that as no man is clean and pure as God is, or in comparison of him, or in his sight; they can neither be naturally clean, nor so of themselves, by any means or methods they can make use of; but then they may be, as many are, clean by the blood of Christ, and grace of God, through which his people are cleansed from all their sins, and all their iniquities, and are without spot before the throne and in the sight of God. -- John Gill

[2.] Man, by reason of his original corruption, as he is born of a woman, is odious to God's holiness, and cannot be clean in his sight. God sees his impurity, and it is certain that by it he is rendered utterly unfit for communion and fellowship with God in grace here and for the vision and fruition of him in glory hereafter. We have need therefore to be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, and to be bathed again and again in the blood of Christ, that fountain opened. -- Matthew Henry

All men are unclean by natural generation. That is why Mary's egg could not have been used. Had her egg been used, Jesus would have been unclean in His flesh.
 
Last edited:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
donnA said:
Originally Posted by DHK
This statement in itself seems to me to be a straightforward denial of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ;

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.
We all know Mary was a virgin, and no has denied this, you see to be making stuff up to accuse people of.
I have quoted Scripture. I have named no names. I haven't made up anything. Why the accusation of "making stuff up to accuse people"? Please explain
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
standingfirminChrist said:
or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? which suggests a doctrine that Job as firmly believed as Bildad did, that all men are unclean by natural generation, or as they are born into the world; their ancestors being such, the more immediate, and the more remote, which may be traced back to the first man and woman, Job 14:4; so that as no man is clean and pure as God is, or in comparison of him, or in his sight; they can neither be naturally clean, nor so of themselves, by any means or methods they can make use of; but then they may be, as many are, clean by the blood of Christ, and grace of God, through which his people are cleansed from all their sins, and all their iniquities, and are without spot before the throne and in the sight of God. -- John Gill

[2.] Man, by reason of his original corruption, as he is born of a woman, is odious to God's holiness, and cannot be clean in his sight. God sees his impurity, and it is certain that by it he is rendered utterly unfit for communion and fellowship with God in grace here and for the vision and fruition of him in glory hereafter. We have need therefore to be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, and to be bathed again and again in the blood of Christ, that fountain opened. -- Matthew Henry

All men are unclean by natural generation. That is why Mary's egg could not have been used. Had her egg been used, Jesus would have been unclean in His flesh.

All men and women are born in sin. That is not the question here. You quote Matthew Henry whom I also quoted so there is no contradiction here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top