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

[DHK]

DHK,

Let's start with the simplest principle first.

Jesus Christ is both God and human.

Can He not be Human if He didn't take anything from Mary?

The simple answer is no. Thus the necessity of the virgin birth. In order to be fully human he had to be born from a human, as a human. He came into this world as a human and suffered in every way as a human even in infancy. To deny this is a denial of Heb.4:15, for that includes infancy as well.

I mentioned The Pre-Incarnate Jesus wrestled with Jacob ( Genesis 32:28-32) and He declared " I am God" (Genesis 31:13-15). Jehovah God appeared to Abraham and got His feet washed, ate the food, meat and cheese, Under His feet Israel ate the food ( Ex 24:10-11),
If God the Holy Spirit create a body for Jesus and Jesus take another body which is exactly the same as the First Adam, then He is not God-Man?

Apples and oranges. A christophany is far different than the body that Christ had in the incarnation. Whenever Christ appeared in the OT, he appeared in a glorified body of some sort. It would be like Moses and Elijah appearing on the Mount of Transfiguration--temporary glorified bodies. The Lord's body also was temporarily glorified at that time. When the angels went to Sodom, and Lot met them, he knew that there was something different about them, but he may not have recognized exactly what it was right away. So it was with Jacob meeting the angel. They were not in a strictly human body. Their bodies were capable of doing inhuman things. The body of Christ was completely human in every way--unlike a Christophany. The body of Christ would have suffered in the flames with Shadrach, Meshack, and Abendego, but the fourth person with them (the Son of God) did not, and also kept the other three from suffering.

Let's say if God created the second Adam exactly the same as the First Adam, then the Second Adam is not Adam ( Human being)?

That is pure conjecture. And we know that is not what happened. God created everything in seven days and ceased from his creation. Christ is not a created being. He is God. Don't even go there. Christ is deity. He always was and always will be.

Jesus came in the form of the Second Adam in order to rescue the First Adam. The Blood shed at the Cross was Sinnless and Blemish, while Mary was a sinner by born, and her blood was inherited from sinful parents even though she was redeemed by the Blood of Jesus. When she was redeemed, Jesus didn't shed the Blood yet, and therefore she just received the Promisory Note, not the Cash for the Redemption. All the OT believers were like that. We the NT believers were redeemed by the Prepaid Cash at the Cross.

You confuse allegory and fact. Christ was "the lamb that takes away the sin of the world," but no one ever saw a sheep on the cross. Why are you looking so intensely to confuse simple facts.
The blood was sinless--yes. Did Mary have to be sinless for this to happen? No! Why? Because the sin nature is passed through the Adamic nature or the man. The fact that Christ was born of Mary and not of Joseph means he inherited a sinless nature. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Don't imply that the Holy Spirit was sinful.

You said "sinful parents" And you are talking of biological parents aren't you. Who are the biological parents of Christ? Mary and the Holy Spirit. It says over and over again: born of Mary; conceived of the Holy Spirit. How difficult is this for you. If you say that he has an inherited sinful nature you call the Holy Spirit sinful. And that is blasphemy.

Mary was redeemed like all the other OT saints. She looked unto the cross. Do you imply that Abraham and all other OT saints were unsaved?

You are quite obssessed with the idea that the Human Nature should come from the Adam's race but you have to look at the other factors too.

It is a fact of Scripture that you keep ignoring. If Christ was not human he could not die for the sins of the world. He was the just dying for the unjust. He was the sinless dying for the sinful. He was sinless Son of Man. It is one of the reasons He could die for our sins. He was perfect, and we are not. God demanded a perfect sacrifice. Christ could only provide that sacrifice as a man, taking upon himself human flesh. He had to be born as a human.

Word became Flesh.
If any part of body of Mary became Flesh of Jesus, John were wrong.

That isn't true. You are so fixated on the deity of Christ that you cannot see his humanity. John is speaking of his deity and works his way slowly to the humanity of Christ in John's Gospel. The Bible does not contradict itself; but you are making it contradict itself by not looking at all the Scriptures.

 

[DHK]

By one man's disobedience...

Who disobeyed first? Did not Eve know the command to not eat of the tree? First Eve ate of the tree and the she gave to Adam.

The Word says the two were one flesh. When Paul wrote 'By one man's disobedience,' I believe he was speaking of the fact that both disobeyed.

Remember, they tried to pass the blame? Both disobeyed, but Eve disobeyed first.

Read the entirety of Romans 5. Adam is directly spoken of. It is not an allegory that can be spiritualized away.

Here is an example:
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.
--From Adam to Moses. It doesn't say from Eve to Zipporah. It is speaking about Adam in specific. Adam sinned and death came through Adam, and thus all have sinned. Our sin nature comes through Adam.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

So you are saying Eve, in her disobedience, did not sin?

Wow!

 

[Eliyahu]

Yeah, that's what I was wondering. Was she sinless in those few seconds before he chomped down. I don't think so from what he says. She inherited the sin nature the minute she took a bite but it couldnt be passed on.

Romans 5 doesn't have anything to do with the Gender Distinction, man and woman are both sinners.

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

Sin entered by one man ( Even belonging to Adam's race)


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

Wasn't Eve Disobedient? Only one man Adam was disobedient?


Again, the sin nature has no difference between man and woman, both are sinners.

If Woman are cloned by Stem Cell Research, the sin will still be transferred to the next generation.

 

[Joe]

Romans 5 doesn't have anything to do with the Gender Distinction, man and woman are both sinners.

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

Sin entered by one man ( Even belonging to Adam's race)


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

Wasn't Eve Disobedient? Only one man Adam was disobedient?


Again, the sin nature has no difference between man and woman, both are sinners.

If Woman are cloned by Stem Cell Research, the sin will still be transferred to the next generation.

I was playing devils advocate, repeating what DHK said. Not disagreeing with you.

It makes perfect sense that the verse about sin entering the world through one man, actually means both genders. So both genders, Adam and Eve, had a sin nature which could be passed on.

Otherwise, to believe the second person who ate the apple Adam (man) is the only contagious one, though both carry the sin nature "virus", due to both had sinned, is hard to swallow.

 

[DHK]

I bolded a portion of your post. I understand how you came to that conclusion, the word is clear. Except it makes no sense to me.
So only Adam's sin nature was contageous, though both Adam and Eve carry this sin nature "virus" so to speak. Since Eve ate the apple first, thus acquiring a sin nature first, (likely seconds prior to Adam), she isn't the one who actually brought sin into the world? It's the second human who ate the apple (Adam)?
That doesnt sit right.....
I suppose we'll find out the truth on the other side

Edited to add: Sorry SFIC, I take a while to type posts and didn't realize I was duplicating your words.

1. Eve was deceived; Adam was not.
2. Adam ate of the fruit in direct rebellion to God's command. There was no deception involved, just straight rebellion.
3. Adam was also the head of his household, and thus responsible, in part, for the actions of Eve. He bears part of the responsibity for the actions of his wife. He is the head of the family.
4. "and they twain shall be one flesh" Adam is the head of that one flesh and bears the greater responsibility.

 

[Eliyahu]

This argument on Romans 5 reveals the problem with English influence of Man in terms of gender distinction.

Andres : men

Anthropos : man ( meaning human beling including men and women)

A great confusion and misunderstanding.

Nevertheless, I expect DHK would not admit his mistake and ignorance about this.

 

[DHK]

I was playing devils advocate, repeating what DHK said. Not disagreeing with you.

It makes perfect sense that the verse about sin entering the world through one man, actually means both genders. So both genders, Adam and Eve, had a sin nature which could be passed on.

Otherwise, to believe the second person who ate the apple Adam (man) is the only contagious one, though both carry the sin nature "virus" is hard to swallow.

But that is not what the Bible teaches. It is not what historic Christianity has ever taught. Romans five clearly refers to Adam, not a neutral figure, but Adam as the first man. There is the first Adam and the second Adam. Adam is a man. He is the first man that sinned. This is not mankind and has nothing to do with Eve.

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:

There is only one explanation for that verse. It has nothing to do with Eve.
The one man is Adam.

 

[Eliyahu]

1. Eve was deceived; Adam was not.
2. Adam ate of the fruit in direct rebellion to God's command. There was no deception involved, just straight rebellion.
3. Adam was also the head of his household, and thus responsible, in part, for the actions of Eve. He bears part of the responsibity for the actions of his wife. He is the head of the family.
4. "and they twain shall be one flesh" Adam is the head of that one flesh and bears the greater responsibility.

So, was Eve not a sinner until Adam ate the Fruit?

 

[DHK]

This argument on Romans 5 reveals the problem with English influence of Man in terms of gender distinction.

Andres : men

Anthropos : man ( meaning human beling including men and women)

A great confusion and misunderstanding.

Nevertheless, I expect DHK would not admit his mistake and ignorance about this.

What mistake?

Romans 5:14 but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.

Adam, the first man, sinned.
Adam was a type of him who is to come.
He who was to come is Christ.
Do you think I was wrong? Or is Christ neuter in gender? Or is he female? What is my mistake here?

I believe an apology is also owed for the personal attack

 

[DHK]

So, was Eve not a sinner until Adam ate the Fruit?

The curse was not pronounced until Gen.3:14-17, though Adam and Eve sinned in verses 6 and 7

 

[Eliyahu]

What mistake?

Romans 5:14 but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.

Adam, the first man, sinned.
Adam was a type of him who is to come.
He who was to come is Christ.
Do you think I was wrong? Or is Christ neuter in gender? Or is he female? What is my mistake here?

I believe an apology is also owed for the personal attack

YOu still do not realize what was the problem with yours.

Why do you evade my questions?

Answer straightly:

Was EVe Sinless until Adam ate the Fruit?

Was the Blood of Jesus shed at the Cross inherited from Mary?

 

[DHK]

YOu still do not realize what was the problem with yours.

Enlighten me.

Was EVe Sinless until Adam ate the Fruit?

According to the Word of God, sin came by Adam, and there was no sin before Adam. That is the teaching of the Bible.

Was the Blood of Jesus shed at the Cross inherited from Mary?

According to the Bible, Jesus was born of a virgin, conceived of the Holy Spirit. Thus his human nature did come from a woman. Of that there is no doubt. Do not ignore the Holy Spirit in all of this.

 

[Eliyahu]

DHK,

I asked these questions first.

Please answer them first.

Was EVe Sinless until Adam ate the Fruit?

Was the Blood of Jesus shed at the Cross inherited from Mary?

 

[DHK]

DHK,

I asked these questions first.

Please answer them first.

Was EVe Sinless until Adam ate the Fruit?

Was the Blood of Jesus shed at the Cross inherited from Mary?

I answered them as plainly as the Bible answers them. And that is quite direct. I don't know much else to do if you can't get an answer from my previous post.
Your questions have been answered.

 

[Eliyahu]

I answered them as plainly as the Bible answers them. And that is quite direct. I don't know much else to do if you can't get an answer from my previous post.
Your questions have been answered.

You never answered them yet. Please be honest to answer them.
If I am wrong, please be kind to answer them again.

 

[Joe]

DHK,

I asked these questions first.

Please answer them first.

Was EVe Sinless until Adam ate the Fruit?

Yes
DHKsaid Eve was sinless until the Lord rebuked & cursed them. The Lord rebuked and cursed both Adam and Eve at the same time time for their past sin. A time period passed between eating the apple and the Lord confronting them. They ate the apple, but there was an "incubation perod" before the sin nature virus became full blown until the Lord rebuked them and cursed them. So some minutes, maybe hours or more passed until the penalty (sin nature) was cursed upon them.During the incubation period, they were streaking about hiding behind bushes upon hearing the Lords voice, then the Lord called them and cursed them along with Satan.

They were sinless because they didn't have the imputed sin nature cursed into them until the later verses DHK said.

Was the Blood of Jesus shed at the Cross inherited from Mary?

Yes
DHK says the blood carried the sinful nature, but didn't pass it onto Christ. IT was impossible to pass onto Christ because the sin nature is only passed in Adam (men )-amongst other reasons not applicable to this discussion at the moment) because he is responsible for Eve, his helpmate. He was rebellious against God, knew better, but Eve was deceived and he listened to her instead of taking charge.
This is what DHK says

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Eve was deceived only in the fact that she believed that she would not die.

She was disobedient to God's command before Adam was. The serpent did not mention which tree was forbidden:

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Notice the serpent did not say which tree was forbidden? Read on:

Genesis 3:2-3 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

It is clear Eve knew which tree was forbidden to eat of, for she told the serpent which one it was.

Read on:

Genesis 3:4-5 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

There is the deception. She was deceived by the serpent into believing that she would not die.

She then saw the appealing nature of the fruit of that tree.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The Tree did not deceive her, the tree did not deceiver her, but the serpent, he beguiled her and she did eat.

So, in her disobedience to God's command, she ate of the tree. Her disobedience was before Adam. How can it be said she did not sin before the man?

 

[DHK]

DHK,

I asked these questions first.

Please answer them first.

Was EVe Sinless until Adam ate the Fruit?

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:

No one sinned before Adam: no pre-Adamic race; and not Eve either; no-one. Adam was the first to bring sin into the world.

Was the Blood of Jesus shed at the Cross inherited from Mary?

Christ was born of Mary, conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

The woman that Paul refers to is Mary. It was Mary's humanity, Mary's flesh, Mary's blood. It was God's doing; conceived by the Holy Spirit. It was a miracle.

Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
--"Son of man" is a term used to refer to the humanity of Christ.
He came, as a man, to give his life as a ransom for many. He could only do that if he was wholly and completely man. And at the same time wholly and completely God. He was the God-man. Only a perfect man could atone for an imperfect man.

 

[Eliyahu]

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:

No one sinned before Adam: no pre-Adamic race; and not Eve either; no-one. Adam was the first to bring sin into the world.

Is it a sin if she was deceived by the Serpent?
Is it a sin if she disobeyed God who prohibited the eating of Fruit?
I told you that Romans 5:12-19 doesn't say any Adres brought the sin to the world, but Anthorpow brought the sin, and therefore there is NO word that Adam brought the sin and Eve was sinless until Adam sinned even though she disobeyed God.
You misunderstand greatly here because you don't accept the woman can sin. The reason why Adam was mentioned all the time is because Adam represented the his race ( family) at that time.
If my son caused the accident during his driving, my Insurance account became Accident family though our family have never had the traffic accident so far. In that case, my name will be mentioned as the accident caused the person. However, when we go into the details, the sin was first brought by a woman, Eve. Eve was a sinner as soon as she disobeyed God and ate the Fruit, even before Adam ate the fruit.
That Eve was sinless until Adam ate the fruit is groundless in the Bible because Ro 5:12 doesn't say Andre ( man).

Christ was born of Mary, conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

The woman that Paul refers to is Mary. It was Mary's humanity, Mary's flesh, Mary's blood. It was God's doing; conceived by the Holy Spirit. It was a miracle.

Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
--"Son of man" is a term used to refer to the humanity of Christ.
He came, as a man, to give his life as a ransom for many. He could only do that if he was wholly and completely man. And at the same time wholly and completely God. He was the God-man. Only a perfect man could atone for an imperfect man.

1. Is it impossible for God to create another Adam ? Yes or No please>

2. If God create another Adam, the second Adam, can he not be another Human? Is the Word "Man " not from Adam?

3. So, you are saying that the Blood shed at the Cross was Mary's Blood, aren't you?

Was Mary not a sinner?
Could she shed the sinless blood?
Could a Sinner inherit the sinless Blood?
Didn't Jesus offer the blemish, sinless body and Blood at the Cross?
How could a sinful person inherit the Sinless body to the Embryo?
Why wasn't the Blood of Abel so good as the Blood of Jesus if the Blood itself is sin-neutral?( Heb 12:24)