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

[donnA]

Because Scripture does not support the idea that Mary did not conceive Christ. End of story. And no amount of Scripture twisting will prove that she did not conceive Him.

I have not twisted scripture, so please do not accuse me of such.
In order for an egg to form a human body it must be fertilized with a human sperm. Where did that come from in your thought?
How do you explain Jesus and the lack of the sin nature He would have inherited from Mary if she contributed dna?
I believe in the miraculous, that God is able to create from nothing.

 

[MichelleinPA]

I too believe in the miraculous - you can't look around you and not. But I don't believe that Mary was nothing but a glorified oven, and Scripture does not back that up.

 

[Joe]

I too believe in the miraculous - you can't look around you and not. But I don't believe that Mary was nothing but a glorified oven, and Scripture does not back that up.

Michelle, how come you keep making snide remarks about Mary? She was called "blessed" by our Lord, and favored so much so, she carried our Savior.

 

[Eliyahu]

Many people misunderstand this verse:

Genesis 3
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


Who are Thee and the Woman?

Who are thy Seed and Her Seed?

Did Mary fight the snakes?

Where did Mary fight the Satan?

Genesis 3
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.


Seed (Zerah ) appears more than 200 times but the most of them meant " child" or "descendant" only a few times could be interpretted as Sperm.

Are the children of Surrogate mother not her children?

 

[Danny Hurley]

Orb

2 Tim says- But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they gender strifes.

 

[Zenas]

How do you explain Jesus and the lack of the sin nature He would have inherited from Mary if she contributed dna?

Immaculate Conception?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Mary was not sinless, so Immaculate Conception is a false doctrine.

 

[mrtumnus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by donnA
How do you explain Jesus and the lack of the sin nature He would have inherited from Mary if she contributed dna?

Immaculate Conception?

As one who is quite familiar with this doctrine, the insistence of people trying to apply it to this question (either to prove or disprove their point) is rather strange.

It has nothing at all to do with this discussion. It has nothing to do with the idea of preventing a 'sin nature' from being passed on to Jesus.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

A baby inherits from it's mother through that egg, same as it would have Jesus, He would have inherited the sin nature, same as we all do. Adam wasn't concieved, was he fully man, fully human? No, God created his human flesh, same as He did Jesus. What makes no sense is to say Jesus had Mary's dna, inherited the sin nature from her, when we know this is not true in the least.

You’re preaching a RC doctrine…it’s understandable though…Protestantism is the egg (no pun intended) laid by the RCC…

Jesus inherited death, as we all do, that’s what God cursed Adam with and that’s what is inherited...death…We’re not guilty of Adam’s personal sin, Adam is responsible for his own sin and you and I are responsible for our own sin. Because of Adam’s sin and the fallen creation, we through our own free will choose to sin and break our relationship with God.

Jesus inherited death, and thus He died a physical death, just as you and I will. Jesus being fully human and fully divine, Jesus’ humanity, the same as our humanity and our tendency to rebel and sin, submitted to His divine will, therefore Jesus remained sinless.

All this crying about eggs is for the birds (no pun intended). God choose a young virgin for a reason…God could’ve sent His Son fully human and divine without the aid of Mary or any woman, but there’s a reason and Scripture was fulfilled, through a young Virgin named Mary.

The Early Church never had issues with eggs in regard to Christ’s Incarnation; b/c the Early Church had a firm grip on Original Sin. This never became an issue until Augustine’s theology concerning Original Sin and just as you are trying to downplay the Incarnation around your theology of the Original Sin, the RCC did the same in dogmatizing the Immaculate Conception.

You can’t fathom sin tainting Christ in the womb of Mary via her egg, b/c Mary passes on sin, so you claim God did it all outside of Mary’s womb and without any egg. The RCC can’t fathom sin tainting Christ so they develop the Immaculate Conception that Mary was free from Original sin, thus no sin was passed on to Christ.

The Orthodox Church says, from the beginning, that Man inherits death and is responsible for his own sin. Thus Mary a sinner passes only the inheritance of death on to Jesus as humanity, not sin. Though His humanity like ours, His submits to His divine nature and unlike us, remains sinless, while we eventually succumb and sin.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Eliyahu]

Was the Blood shed at the Cross inherited from Mary?

 

[mrtumnus]

The RCC can’t fathom sin tainting Christ so they develop the Immaculate Conception that Mary was free from Original sin, thus no sin was passed on to Christ.

-

Except for that the IC doctrine has nothing to do with concern about Mary passing on a 'sin nature' to Jesus.

How could it? You would then have the same issue with Mary, requiring an IC of her parents, and then with their parents....

But for some reason I think there's an echo in here...

Oh wait, it's me saying the same thing, and everybody ignoring me.

:BangHead:

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Except for that the IC doctrine has nothing to do with concern about Mary passing on a 'sin nature' to Jesus.

How could it? You would then have the same issue with Mary, requiring an IC of her parents, and then with their parents....

But for some reason I think there's an echo in here...

Oh wait, it's me saying the same thing, and everybody ignoring me.

:BangHead:

We are not ignoring you, ma'am. we just know better than to accept doctrine that does not line up with the Word of God.

 

[mrtumnus]

We are not ignoring you, ma'am. we just know better than to accept doctrine that does not line up with the Word of God.

Silly me. I just think people should have an accurate understanding of the doctrine they reject. And to continue to insist that it has something to do with having to find a way to not pass a 'sin nature' on to Jesus and tie it to this discussion indicates that people do not have an accurate understanding of the doctrine.

Rejection of a doctrine that you do not have a correct understanding of is somewhat meaningless you know.

 

[rbell]

He did not have a sin nature. He could not have been fully man.

hoo boy...SFIC, you've crossed the line. Fully God, Fully man. Please don't deny that.

Hebrews 4:15--

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin."

You're way, way off on this one.

Back up slowly away from the heresy.

Jesus was no automaton. He could have sinned, but did not. If Jesus did not have the capacity to sin, then He couldn't have been tempted, which invalidates Heb. 4:15 (et al).

You are very, very wrong on this one. To say that Jesus was "not fully man" messes with the Incarnation...a fundamental of the faith.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Where do you get fully man out of that verse. If He did not have a sin nature, He could not have been fully man. All men are born with a sin nature.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Although Christ was tempted (tested), He could not sin. He did not have a sin nature.

 

[rbell]

maybe we're talking circles around each other, then.

It was never God's perfect design for man to have a "sin nature." That came about because of the fall. Because of our rebellion, we have a sin nature...something absent from Adam/Eve, pre-fall.

So, by the absence of a sin nature, it may be that Jesus was indeed MORE "fully man" than the rest of us. Does that make sense?

But I'm incredibly uncomfortable with the statement "Jesus was not fully man." That statement leads to many heresies. I know you don't deny the fulness of the Incarnation...but that statement causes problems IMO with the understanding of the Incarnation.

 

[annsni]

Sorry - Was out all day so now I'm going through the ton of posts since I left.

1. You try to make the false idea become the Truth by relying on the number of supporters. There are billions of Atheists, and they deny the Virgin Birth. Is it True? The Truth doesn't require the number of its supporters.

The Bible rebukes you here: ( Ex 23:2)
2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:

No - I'm pointing out that this is a new heresy. No one in history has believed this. If it takes "science" to come up with a new idea about Jesus - a "new insight", then something is wrong. This "science" is saying that Scripture is a lie.

2. Many innate deformation, handicapped weaknesses by born such as Blindness are inherited thru the DNA. None of the people of the world is perfect since the sin had entered the world. How come Jesus could be perfect if He is a product of the sinful human = Mary?

Because God is God.

3. Are you saying that the Deity of Jesus came from God and that the human nature of His came from Mary? say yes or No

I'm saying that God used the egg from Mary to create the Messiah. I don't think that's where all His human flesh came from since it takes 2 sets of DNA to make an egg fertilized and become a baby.

4. Where is the scripture saying that Jesus carried Mary's DNA?
Where is it clear?
Bible just listed the genealogy of the Surrogate Mother and Step-Father. Why does it list the genealogy of Joseph?

A geneology is useless if it is not blood passed through the line. You're seriously ignorant when it comes to blood lines. You cannot claim to be of the blood line of someone when you are not physically a part of that family. If God created Jesus apart from Mary, without connection to a human, then He is not human. He might be LIKE a human but He would not be human. The seed of Eve would bear the Messiah - that is in Genesis 3:15. The "seed" represents offspring as it does all through the Scriptures - not ONCE does it mean an adopted child. THAT is the proof.

Why is it so hard to believe God miraculously created Jesus' human body and placed it in Mary.

God could absolutely do this. However, He put limits on how the Messiah would come to earth - and a few of those limits are that He would be of he blood line of David. Just as He could have redeemed the world in another way, He had already put limits that He HAD to fulfill in order to do that. God can do anything but He will not do anything outside His will or His order. Why can you not believe that God could create a perfect human from an imperfect mother? Quite limiting to God, don't you think?

 

[rbell]

Although Christ was tempted (tested), He could not sin. He did not have a sin nature.

How can one be tempted, if one doesn't have the capacity to give in?

That makes no sense. And it negates the meaning of Heb. 4:15.

 

[annsni]

Are the children of Surrogate mother not her children?

Not in a blood lineage. Remember that there were SERIOUS issues with blood lines in the Scripture. God made promises through the blood lines - and not just for anyone in the household but to specific people and their own offspring.

2 Tim says- But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they gender strifes.

Are you my husband? When I speak to him of these things, that's exactly what he says to me. LOL! I still like a good discussion though.