Was Mary a surrogate or did she contribute her seed to Jesus??

[DHK]

If one studies biology properly, one would find conception does not ordinarily take place in the womb. It occurs in the fallopian tubes. Yet the conception spoken of in the case of Mary was in the womb, not the fallopian tubes.

Further proof that the birth of Christ was caused by God. Man had no part in it... not even in supplying the egg.

If one studies the Bible right he knows that though it be scientifically right, it is not a book of science. When you get to heaven, if you so desire you can ask Mary about fallopian tubes. You can also ask her if she had that knowledge when she was on earth. As for me, I will believe the Bible.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Do you not think the angels in heaven had that knowledge?

As for me, I believe the Bible. Mary did not contribute her egg, or Christ would have been born a sinner.

 

[annsni]

One more page to go around the mulberry bush a few more times! :wavey:

 

[EdSutton]

Fundamental truth is found in the Word of God.
The virgin birth is a foundational doctrine of Chrtistianity, just as important as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
What does the Bible say about His birth:

It talks about the "seed of a woman" (Genesis 3:15)
It speaks of Christ being "made of a woman" (Gal.4:4)
It was prophesied by Isa. that a virgin would conceive (Isa.7:14)
That reference has been referred to many times in the NT.
The angel reassured Mary that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and she would conceive through the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore Mary herself rejoices in God her Savior indicating that she herself is in need of Savior, futher admitting that she is a sinner; for only sinners need a Saviour.

Christ is deity, and always was. He was born of a virgin, but his deity never changed. He was not born of Joseph through which the sin nature comes. He was born of the "seed" of Mary (Gen.3:15)--a miraculous event, conceived of the Holy Spirit. Thus He did not have a sin nature, though his human nature did come from Mary. It is the only way that he could inherit a human nature and come into this world as man, suffer as man, live as man, and finally die as man--and yet all this time remain as God.

These are fundamental truths.

You are confusing deity with humanity. John presents Christ as deity. Luke presents Christ as the Son of Man. The emphasis on every Gospel is different, and the prupose of every gospel is different. To take one verse out one gospel without comparing it to others is taking Scripture out of context--something indicative of a cult (though I am not accusing of that). God came into this world--that is true. But that is only true because the two natures cannot be separated. Mary gave birth to Jesus, his humanity. Jesus never ceased to be God, but many times he laid aside his divine attributes (as he did during his birth (and the nine months before that). He laid aside his divine attributes when he went to the cross willingly of his own accord. He didn't have to. He didn't have to go to the cross. The Bible says that he could have called 12 legions of angels to defend himself but he didn't. He went to the cross anyway to die for you and me.

What is your point here? Mary gave birth to Jesus. The Bible says he did. Read Luke 2.

There were three classes of people:
1. Those that were totally ignorant of the birth of Christ, and accused Christ of being born of fornication--not even recognizing Joseph as a father.
2. Those that unwittingly and naively accepted (but wrongly) that Joseph was his father.
Neither of these groups knew much of the birth of Christ, and wrongly assumed that he was from Galilee or from Nazareth.

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

John 7:41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?

Very few took the time to look into the facts: Where did Christ really come from.
1. He was born in Bethlehem of Ephratha.
2. He was born of Mary, conceived of the Holy Spirit.
3. Most important of all, He came from Heaven. (John 3:13)

Read about Joseph's genealogy:
[FONT=&quot] Jer. 22:24-30 shows that the curse of Jechoniah demanded the virgin birth.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a. The Lord's promise to David (2 Sam.7:16): Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b. Several generations later Jehoiachin (Coniah) was cursed (Jer.22:30): Thus saith the Lord write this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c. The physical link was cursed by God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]d. Joseph, the legal father of Jesus, was of this cursed line.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]e. The solution: Mary was a descendant of Nathan, another son of David (Lk.3:31).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]f. There was no other way that the Lord Jesus could have escaped the curse. The fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin birth is the only way the Lord could be true to His promise to David and His curse on Jehoiachin.[/FONT]

Jesus was born of a virgin. His flesh came from Mary. His sin nature did not. All throughout He remained God. He never relinquished his deity, though he set aside his divine attributes for a temporary period of time.

Amen and Amen to this!

Ed

 

[DHK]

Had Mary provided the egg, Jesus would not have been the sinless sacrifice that was needed. All were declared sinners because of one's disobedience. Sin would have been passed on through Christ through man. It was not, because God did not use Mary's egg.

God performed a miracle that day that many do not believe happened.

You state something that is not true without any foundation, or basis. Either back up your statement with Biblical proof or don't make ad hoc statements. Just because Mary provided an egg does not mean Jesus would not have been the sinless sacrifice that was needed.
You have stated your opinion without any basis in fact.
It is an unsubstantiated opinion--what other's call: "a vain man's imagination." Surely you can do better than that. Where is your proof for these outlandish statements?

"All were declared sinners because of one man's disobedience."
Correct, and no one argues that point.

"Sin would have been passed on through Christ through man."
Wrong. We are talking about the virgin birth. Remember?

There was no man involved to pass on the sin. Read your statements again.
1. "All were declared sinners because of one man's sin", specifically Adam's, the first man.
2. "Sin would have been passed on through Christ through the man." What man? Mary is not a man, the last time I looked. Are you blind? Got gender problems? Mary is not a man. Thus the necessity of the virgin birth.

 

[DHK]

Do you not think the angels in heaven had that knowledge?

Sure SFIC, maybe they did and maybe they didn't. They arent' omniscient so we don't know. And even if they did, what proof do I have if they shared it with you? :laugh:

 

[DHK]

Do you not think the angels in heaven had that knowledge?

As for me, I believe the Bible. Mary did not contribute her egg, or Christ would have been born a sinner.

A statement without foundation in fact.
An opinion without anything to back it up.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Just because Mary provided an egg does not mean Jesus would not have been the sinless sacrifice that was needed.

Either back up the claim that Mary provided an egg with Biblical proof or don't make ad hoc statements

 

[standingfirminChrist]

You state something that is not true without any foundation, or basis. Either back up your statement with Biblical proof or don't make ad hoc statements. Just because Mary provided an egg does not mean Jesus would not have been the sinless sacrifice that was needed.
You have stated your opinion without any basis in fact.
It is an unsubstantiated opinion--what other's call: "a vain man's imagination." Surely you can do better than that. Where is your proof for these outlandish statements?

"All were declared sinners because of one man's disobedience."
Correct, and no one argues that point.

"Sin would have been passed on through Christ through man."
Wrong. We are talking about the virgin birth. Remember?

There was no man involved to pass on the sin. Read your statements again.
1. "All were declared sinners because of one man's sin", specifically Adam's, the first man.
2. "Sin would have been passed on through Christ through the man." What man? Mary is not a man, the last time I looked. Are you blind? Got gender problems? Mary is not a man. Thus the necessity of the virgin birth.

Stop with the attacks, DHK. You don't like the message so you attack the messenger?

Eve was disobedient before Adam, Eve was not a man either. Eve is the one who brought sin into the world through her disobedience.

Study, DHK, and you will find in Scripture man refers to both man and woman.

 

[DHK]

Either back up the claim that Mary provided an egg with Biblical proof or don't make ad hoc statements

SFIC:
I first provided you a detailed post with biological details on how a baby is born. I provided, along with that post Scripture, and related how the seed of Mary, how Mary conceived can only mean that, as the Bible declares "the shadow of the most High came upon her and overshadowed her, and she conceived of the Holy Spirit." That "holy thing" that was in her was of the Holy Spirit. The thing was the fertilized egg; no person would ever address Christ, the Creator of the universe in that way, especially an angel. In fact he said, "that holy thing in you shall be called the Son of God." When? Nine months later after the conception when he would be born.
Biology and the Bible here fit like a glove fits a hand. There is no contradiction.

What you have a problem with is the word conception and cannot give a straight answer. How did Mary conceive nine months before she gave birth. What is conception? The Bible says that she conceived of the Holy Spirit, but you can't accept what the Bible says. "That which is in you was conceived of the Holy Spirit."
What was conceived? Explain please?
Why can't you do that?
Why are you silent here. You have no answer. You have no answer because the only answer is that conception takes place when a sperm unites with the ovum and produces a fertilized egg. This miraculous event took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. Mary's ovum was used, and the event miraculously took place, and thus the life of Christ humanly began. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Anything less than that denies a part of his humanity.

 

[annsni]

Stop with the attacks, DHK. You don't like the message so you attack the messenger?

Eve was disobedient before Adam, Eve was not a man either. Eve is the one who brought sin into the world through her disobedience.

Study, DHK, and you will find in Scripture man refers to both man and woman.

Read Romans 5:13-14: Sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the TRANSGRESSION OF ADAM, who was a type of the one who was to come.

That entire passage of Romans is comparing Christ to Adam - not Eve. Study, SFIC and you will find in Scripture that "man" in this passage is referring to Adam.

 

[annsni]

SFIC:
I first provided you a detailed post with biological details on how a baby is born. I provided, along with that post Scripture, and related how the seed of Mary, how Mary conceived can only mean that, as the Bible declares "the shadow of the most High came upon her and overshadowed her, and she conceived of the Holy Spirit." That "holy thing" that was in her was of the Holy Spirit. The thing was the fertilized egg; no person would ever address Christ, the Creator of the universe in that way, especially an angel. In fact he said, "that holy thing in you shall be called the Son of God." When? Nine months later after the conception when he would be born.
Biology and the Bible here fit like a glove fits a hand. There is no contradiction.

What you have a problem with is the word conception and cannot give a straight answer. How did Mary conceive nine months before she gave birth. What is conception? The Bible says that she conceived of the Holy Spirit, but you can't accept what the Bible says. "That which is in you was conceived of the Holy Spirit."
What was conceived? Explain please?
Why can't you do that?
Why are you silent here. You have no answer. You have no answer because the only answer is that conception takes place when a sperm unites with the ovum and produces a fertilized egg. This miraculous event took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. Mary's ovum was used, and the event miraculously took place, and thus the life of Christ humanly began. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Anything less than that denies a part of his humanity.

Amen DHK. And this is what has been taught through all the history of Christianity. It's just this "new revelation" that some have that deny the power of the Holy Spirit and the necessity of Christ to be fully human and of the lineage that God set forth from the beginning. I started this thread because of the shock of hearing this for the first time. How sad that I even had to hear this delusion at all.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

SFIC:
I first provided you a detailed post with biological details on how a baby is born. I provided, along with that post Scripture, and related how the seed of Mary, how Mary conceived can only mean that, as the Bible declares "the shadow of the most High came upon her and overshadowed her, and she conceived of the Holy Spirit." That "holy thing" that was in her was of the Holy Spirit. The thing was the fertilized egg; no person would ever address Christ, the Creator of the universe in that way, especially an angel. In fact he said, "that holy thing in you shall be called the Son of God." When? Nine months later after the conception when he would be born.
Biology and the Bible here fit like a glove fits a hand. There is no contradiction.

What you have a problem with is the word conception and cannot give a straight answer. How did Mary conceive nine months before she gave birth. What is conception? The Bible says that she conceived of the Holy Spirit, but you can't accept what the Bible says. "That which is in you was conceived of the Holy Spirit."
What was conceived? Explain please?
Why can't you do that?
Why are you silent here. You have no answer. You have no answer because the only answer is that conception takes place when a sperm unites with the ovum and produces a fertilized egg. This miraculous event took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. Mary's ovum was used, and the event miraculously took place, and thus the life of Christ humanly began. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Anything less than that denies a part of his humanity.

Again, show me Scripture that specifically says Mary's egg was used. It is not there.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Read Romans 5:13-14: Sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the TRANSGRESSION OF ADAM, who was a type of the one who was to come.

That entire passage of Romans is comparing Christ to Adam - not Eve. Study, SFIC and you will find in Scripture that "man" in this passage is referring to Adam.

So women can be disobedient and in their disobedience they do not sin? Wow. Where do you come up with these things?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Everyone agrees that Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy concerning Christ.
To show 'her seed' does not refer to Mary's egg, Genesis is specific to say 'her seed' and not 'her egg'.

Was it Mary's egg that bruised the serpent's head? or was it Christ?

My Bible tells me it is Christ.

 

[DHK]

Stop with the attacks, DHK. You don't like the message so you attack the messenger?

Eve was disobedient before Adam, Eve was not a man either. Eve is the one who brought sin into the world through her disobedience.

Study, DHK, and you will find in Scripture man refers to both man and woman.

1. Pointing out logical errors in your response are not attacks. You are being illogical and nonsensical.

2. Now you are saying that Eve was being disobedient before Adam. The Bible says that there was no sin before Adam. As confusing a statement that may be to you, you must accept it by faith. God imputed to Adam the first sin. Don't base your beliefs on your own reasoning and rationalizing but rather on the Word of God. Go back to Romans 5:12, 19. The first man to sin was Adam. It was through Adam that sin entered into the world, not through Eve, in spite of what you read in the 3rd chapter of Genesis.

3. Man does not refer to both man and woman.
Study Romans 5. How is Christ made in the likeness of a woman. We have a problem there don't we. That is a blasphemous statement to make isn't it. Do we go so far as to say that Christ was a woman?? That is what one could imply by your beliefs. Look at Romans 5 again.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless 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.
--Adam was a person just as real as Moses to whom he is compared to.
--Adam is the figure of Jesus who is to come. He is not a "figure head" of the human race, but rather an actual man just as surely as Christ is an actual man. How dare you spiritualize this passage to simply mean that the word Adam can mean either man or woman. If that is the case then we can assume that perhaps Moses was a woman; Christ was a woman? Let's use some common sense here.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Calling me blind and accusing me of not knowing gender is an attack.

If another poster called you blind and accused you of not knowing gender, you would take that as an affront... which it would be. Why is it not an attack coming from you?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

1. Pointing out logical errors in your response are not attacks. You are being illogical and nonsensical.

2. Now you are saying that Eve was being disobedient before Adam. The Bible says that there was no sin before Adam. As confusing a statement that may be to you, you must accept it by faith. God imputed to Adam the first sin. Don't base your beliefs on your own reasoning and rationalizing but rather on the Word of God. Go back to Romans 5:12, 19. The first man to sin was Adam. It was through Adam that sin entered into the world, not through Eve, in spite of what you read in the 3rd chapter of Genesis.

3. Man does not refer to both man and woman.
Study Romans 5. How is Christ made in the likeness of a woman. We have a problem there don't we. That is a blasphemous statement to make isn't it. Do we go so far as to say that Christ was a woman?? That is what one could imply by your beliefs. Look at Romans 5 again.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless 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.
--Adam was a person just as real as Moses to whom he is compared to.
--Adam is the figure of Jesus who is to come. He is not a "figure head" of the human race, but rather an actual man just as surely as Christ is an actual man. How dare you spiritualize this passage to simply mean that the word Adam can mean either man or woman. If that is the case then we can assume that perhaps Moses was a woman; Christ was a woman? Let's use some common sense here.

Eve was disobedient before Adam. She knew she was not to eat of the tree, she ate of it. Then she gave of the tree to Adam. She disobeyed first. To say she did not is to deny Scripture.

Sin is the transgression of the Law. The Law given in the garden was to not eat of the tree. Eve was in disobedience first. She transgressed the Law.

 

[annsni]

Again, show me Scripture that specifically says Mary's egg was used. It is not there.

It's been shown - that Jesus was to be born of the seed of a woman. That does NOT mean that He was just the birthed product of Mary but of the bloodlines of David and Eve. But you do not accept the Word of God as it states and instead fix your own meaning to words.

Romans 1:3 says "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" Note the "of the seed of David according to the flesh" - that is quite more than just an adoption but flesh and blood.

Scripture is quite clear on this going back to prophecy AND the New Testament.

 

[DHK]

Everyone agrees that Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy concerning Christ.
To show 'her seed' does not refer to Mary's egg, Genesis is specific to say 'her seed' and not 'her egg'.

Was it Mary's egg that bruised the serpent's head? or was it Christ?

My Bible tells me it is Christ.

The "her" means something doesn't it. Words have meaning. This was a direct reference to the virgin birth. Almost every commentary I pick up will say the same thing. It is the first Messianic prophecy. The way that we know that it is a Messianic prohecy is that "her seed" refers to the one born of the virgin--Christ--born of her seed, without man's interference. It is the same thing that is taught in Isaiah 7:14. But you have a problem with that verse also don't you.