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

[annsni]

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

I come up with these things from Scripture. Eve sinned - but who's sin was counted as sin that would be passed down from generation to generation? Who's sin created a curse on all mankind? The Bible says Adam.

 

[DHK]

Why don't you spend a reasonable amount of time answering post #296 instead of avoiding it?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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.

It has not been shown. There has only been an inferrence that her egg was used with no Scriptural support.

 

[annsni]

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.

Christ WAS her seed. He had her DNA in Him.

 

[DHK]

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.

Why not answer the post instead of making just a couple of unfounded observations about it. Answer it point by point.

 

[annsni]

It has not been shown. There has only been an inferrence that her egg was used with no Scriptural support.

Scriptural support is there - as any commentary will tell you. As any Church father will tell you. As Paul will tell you. As any reputable Christian leader today will tell you. You are just blinded by your own "knowledge" to the truth.

 

[annsni]

Well, gentlemen, it's been real but it's late (1:30 AM our time). I think I'm going to turn this off, check on my little seeds and get to bed. I expect this will be closed tomorrow.

So for my last word - Jesus was born of Mary's womb - of Mary's egg! :laugh: :wavey:

 

[DHK]

Originally Posted by standingfirminChrist
It has not been shown. There has only been an inferrence that her egg was used with no Scriptural support.

This is your claim.
Here is what is happening.
I have been giving extensive posts on this thread. I have used both science and Scripture to back up my position. You, OTOH, have igonred them, and have not been able to answer them. I expect more than a couple of unsubstantiated opinions. That is not reasonable debate.

For this reason I am closing this thread.
Plus the fact that it is over 30 pages.
The next time you want to debate SFIC, I suggest you take the time to answer what a person has to say, and not rudely ignore it. It will get you more respect and will move the debate farther along. Going around in circles is fruitless because in the end we find that you are just contradicting yourself because you can't give straight answers and are unable to refute the posts that people make.