-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Was Mary a surrogate or did she contribute her seed to Jesus??
- Thread starter annsni
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
if it was the term used in biology, then it would be God's seed, not Mary's, nor David. For Mary said that she knew no man.
The seed was Mary's offspring, Mary was of the lineage of David. That is exactly what 'her seed' is referring to.
Check your biology books, DHK. I have yet to see a woman produce that which is the man's biologically.
Also, the same Greek word for seed of David in John 7:42 is the exact same word that is used for the farmer who sowed seed in his field in Matthew 13:24.
Did the farmer sow the same biological material we are seeing in John? By your arguments that we are to take the primary word as the meaning and not #3,4, and 5, then the farmer was sowing that which should not have been sown in the ground.
The seed was Mary's offspring, Mary was of the lineage of David. That is exactly what 'her seed' is referring to.
Check your biology books, DHK. I have yet to see a woman produce that which is the man's biologically.
Also, the same Greek word for seed of David in John 7:42 is the exact same word that is used for the farmer who sowed seed in his field in Matthew 13:24.
Did the farmer sow the same biological material we are seeing in John? By your arguments that we are to take the primary word as the meaning and not #3,4, and 5, then the farmer was sowing that which should not have been sown in the ground.
Last edited:
mrtumnus said:I can understand the logic in that position Ann. And I would certainly agree that the belief that she is not sinless is not explicitly defined.
I do think there are problems with taking quotes like "all" and applying them to individuals, as it's obvious there are times when "all" is used when this is not the case.
Who would not have sinned? Only Mary? That is not consistent with the whole of Scripture.
The entire basis for the belief is that it would be against the nature of God to choose to not sanctify his dwelling place. This is seen many times throughout the OT (remember Moses had to remove his shoes because he was on "holy ground'). Given that in the eyes of God his dwelling within Mary is perpetual and eternal, to believe that God would not sanctify her but would rather choose to dwell in a vessel of sin would be considered to be inconsistent with his nature.
Where does it say that the dwelling of God is within Mary perpetually or eternally? God is in each and every believer - yet we are still fleshly beings who are sinners. What is the difference? We still sin, yet we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. That is very consistent with the idea of a sinful Mary carrying the Savior.
Actually people generally believe others have not sinned, such as small children. They evidently aren't part of the 'all' either?annsni said:Who would not have sinned? Only Mary? That is not consistent with the whole of Scripture.
The dwelling is perpetual and eternal because God is outside of time. Each moment in time is always present to Him. To say that "God dwelt within Mary for 9 months" would not be accurate from God's perspective, since each day of eternity is always 'present'.annsni said:Where does it say that the dwelling of God is within Mary perpetually or eternally? God is in each and every believer - yet we are still fleshly beings who are sinners. What is the difference? We still sin, yet we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. That is very consistent with the idea of a sinful Mary carrying the Savior.
I think there's a difference between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the substantive presence of Christ inside Mary. Even though we know Christ lives within us, there is still a difference between this and his substantive presence we will experience at the end.
The best way to explain it is to read the care the Israelites were given to prepare the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant where God would substantively dwell in their midst. There are chapters in the OT given to the instruction for the preparation of the dwelling place of God to the finest detail. "Take the anointing oil and anoint the tabernacle and everything in it; consecrate it and all its furnishings, and it will be holy. Then anoint the altar of burnt offering and all its utensils; consecrate the altar, and it will be most holy. Anoint the basin and its stand and consecrate them." I don't believe God 'moved in' until all His instructions had been carried out to the finest detail.
So the question is -- why did God take such care in preparing this dwelling place? Why did it matter? And then, why would he take no care in preparing the dwelling place where he would be Incarnated? Why would that not matter?
Let's try and clear some things up both on a Scriptural plane and on a biological one that will make sense.
First, what does the Bible say:
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.
--a prophetic reference to the seed of Mary.
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,
--a direct reference to the virgin birth and the humanity of Christ.
John 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
--A reference to the human lineage of Christ back to David, a verse also using the word "seed" the Greek word "sperma."
Christ was fully human.
Christ was fully God.
He was the God-Man; wholly God and wholly man at the same time. The two natures are inseparable. He never at any time gave up his deity.
Now, as delically and tactfully as we can let's insert some biology here. What happens when a child is born?
The ovum of the mother is fertilized by the sperm.
Shortly after mitosis occurs, giving rise to two cells, which in turn give rise to four cells and continue to duplicate.
After about 3 days the embyo has become a mass of about 16 cells and makes its way to the uterus. There cell division continues.
What is important to note is that as the embryo grows it takes no blood from the mother. It produces its own blood, its own circulatory system, as it does all of its own organs. None of the mother's blood enters into the child.
Now, I will stop there. I hope that is enough biology. And I will return to the Scriptures.
Luke 1:34-35 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
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.
These are the words of the angel, and also the Word of God--the explanation that we have of what happened.
In Luke 1:35 the angel refers to "that holy thing" in Mary, and rightly so. Mary did not understand biology. This was the beginning of the nine months. What was in Mary was just an embryo--a holy thing; a fertilized egg; perhaps a zygote. Thus the angel uses a term--holy thing, not contradicting any modern science.
Matthew makes it clear that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by man. Here is where you must break down and admit the miraculous of the virgin birth. The fertilized egg ("sperm" and ovum together) was only possible through the intervention of the Holy Spirit. It indeed was the "seed of the woman" made possible through the intervention of the Holy Spirit. That "holy thing" was made possible when the "power of the highest overshadowed Mary," just as the Scriptures said.
The sin nature is passed down through Adam (Rom.5:12). Thus it was necessary for Christ to be born of a virgin. Even so Christ had his own blood; not Mary's. He inherited some of Mary's characteristics, and even chromosomes. He had to. He had a human body; human flesh; just like you and me. But his blood was his own. That is a biological fact, as you can see.
Thus to give a clear answer--The blood that Jesus shed on the cross was not Mary's blood but His own blood.
He was still wholly man and wholly God at the same time.
I hope that clears up some questions, and is not too explicit at the same time.
First, what does the Bible say:
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.
--a prophetic reference to the seed of Mary.
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,
--a direct reference to the virgin birth and the humanity of Christ.
John 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
--A reference to the human lineage of Christ back to David, a verse also using the word "seed" the Greek word "sperma."
Christ was fully human.
Christ was fully God.
He was the God-Man; wholly God and wholly man at the same time. The two natures are inseparable. He never at any time gave up his deity.
Now, as delically and tactfully as we can let's insert some biology here. What happens when a child is born?
The ovum of the mother is fertilized by the sperm.
Shortly after mitosis occurs, giving rise to two cells, which in turn give rise to four cells and continue to duplicate.
After about 3 days the embyo has become a mass of about 16 cells and makes its way to the uterus. There cell division continues.
What is important to note is that as the embryo grows it takes no blood from the mother. It produces its own blood, its own circulatory system, as it does all of its own organs. None of the mother's blood enters into the child.
Now, I will stop there. I hope that is enough biology. And I will return to the Scriptures.
Luke 1:34-35 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
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.
These are the words of the angel, and also the Word of God--the explanation that we have of what happened.
In Luke 1:35 the angel refers to "that holy thing" in Mary, and rightly so. Mary did not understand biology. This was the beginning of the nine months. What was in Mary was just an embryo--a holy thing; a fertilized egg; perhaps a zygote. Thus the angel uses a term--holy thing, not contradicting any modern science.
Matthew makes it clear that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by man. Here is where you must break down and admit the miraculous of the virgin birth. The fertilized egg ("sperm" and ovum together) was only possible through the intervention of the Holy Spirit. It indeed was the "seed of the woman" made possible through the intervention of the Holy Spirit. That "holy thing" was made possible when the "power of the highest overshadowed Mary," just as the Scriptures said.
The sin nature is passed down through Adam (Rom.5:12). Thus it was necessary for Christ to be born of a virgin. Even so Christ had his own blood; not Mary's. He inherited some of Mary's characteristics, and even chromosomes. He had to. He had a human body; human flesh; just like you and me. But his blood was his own. That is a biological fact, as you can see.
Thus to give a clear answer--The blood that Jesus shed on the cross was not Mary's blood but His own blood.
He was still wholly man and wholly God at the same time.
I hope that clears up some questions, and is not too explicit at the same time.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
It was not Mary's ovum either. Had it been, the Scripture would have declared Christ to be born of sinful flesh. It does not.
He did not come in sinful flesh, only in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Had Mary's ovum been used, certain of her chromosomes would have passed to Him, putting Him in sinful flesh.
He did not come in sinful flesh, only in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Had Mary's ovum been used, certain of her chromosomes would have passed to Him, putting Him in sinful flesh.
I have use both science and the Scriptures to show you otherwise. Do you deny the Scripture? I will need more than just your word SFIC in order to believe you.standingfirminChrist said:It was not Mary's ovum either. Had it been, the Scripture would have declared Christ to be born of sinful flesh. It does not.
He did not come in sinful flesh, only in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Had Mary's ovum been used, certain of her chromosomes would have passed to Him, putting Him in sinful flesh.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
I have already showed Scripture to mean offspring or posterity concerning the seed.
Women do not carry the GR. sperma... men do. 'her seed', the clear prophetic word in Genesis 3:15 in reference to Christ, cannot mean the woman's ovum. Even in the Hebrew the word for egg, is not used.
All through Scripture, it is the man who has the seed, not the woman. 'her seed' speaks of her offspring... the Messiah.
Again, what was the farmer planting? Gr. sperma. By your principle that seed can only mean one thing, what was he thinking he was growing in his garden?
Women do not carry the GR. sperma... men do. 'her seed', the clear prophetic word in Genesis 3:15 in reference to Christ, cannot mean the woman's ovum. Even in the Hebrew the word for egg, is not used.
All through Scripture, it is the man who has the seed, not the woman. 'her seed' speaks of her offspring... the Messiah.
Again, what was the farmer planting? Gr. sperma. By your principle that seed can only mean one thing, what was he thinking he was growing in his garden?
In effect you are denying the miraculous of the virgin birth. I thought only the modernist unbelievers and cults did that. From Genesis 3:15 to Isaiah 7:14 through to Mat. 1 and Luke 1 and 2 this has been made very clear. But you take an obscure definition of a word to support an obscure interpretation of the Word. That is not rightly dividing the Word of truth, is it?standingfirminChrist said:I have already showed Scripture to mean offspring or posterity concerning the seed.
Women do not carry the GR. sperma... men do. 'her seed', the clear prophetic word in Genesis 3:15 in reference to Christ, cannot mean the woman's ovum. Even in the Hebrew the word for egg, is not used.
All through Scripture, it is the man who has the seed, not the woman. 'her seed' speaks of her offspring... the Messiah.
Again, what was the farmer planting? Gr. sperma. By your principle that seed can only mean one thing, what was he thinking he was growing in his garden?
standingfirminChrist
New Member
I am not denying the miraculous of the virgin birth. As a matter of fact, I am showing how miraculous it truly was. God did it all. Mary did not provide a seed as in ovum, but a seed as in offspring.
The Bible says:standingfirminChrist said:I am not denying the miraculous of the virgin birth. As a matter of fact, I am showing how miraculous it truly was. God did it all. Mary did not provide a seed as in ovum, but a seed as in offspring.
Christ was born of Mary.
It says: Matthew 1:20
for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
What did the Holy Spirit conceive, SFIC, What?
What is conception? How does it take place? What is involved? What part did the Holy Spirit have when the Bible specifically says "that whic conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost'? What was conceived??????
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Just as God spoke this world into existence, just as He created man without the use of a woman's ovum, He could just as easily have put His Son into Mary's womb (conception) without using her ovum (which is what I believe happened). At the time of delivery, she gave birth to Jesus. (seed, offspring, posteterity, child)
Who was the psalmist speaking of when He wrote
Psalms 105:6 O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.
Here it means offspring... just as it does in Genesis 3:15. Just as it does in John 7:42.
Who was the psalmist speaking of when He wrote
Psalms 105:6 O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.
Here it means offspring... just as it does in Genesis 3:15. Just as it does in John 7:42.
But that is not what the Bible says is it?standingfirminChrist said:Just as God spoke this world into existence, just as He created man without the use of a woman's ovum, He could just as easily have put His Son into Mary's womb (conception) without using her ovum (which is what I believe happened). At the time of delivery, she gave birth to Jesus. (seed, offspring, posteterity, child)
Who was the psalmist speaking of when He wrote
Psalms 105:6 O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.
Here it means offspring... just as it does in Genesis 3:15. Just as it does in John 7:42.
In fact that is grave error.
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.
--This statement by the angel to Joseph was made nine months before Jesus was born. "That which is in you is in the present tense as already existing. What is already existing, SFIC, nine months before Christ was born?
And why was there a nine month difference between the ages of John the Baptist and Jesus?
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Funny, I do not see the word 'ovum' in the verse you posted.
And storks could easily deliver babies to our doorstep.standingfirminChrist said:He could just as easily have put His Son into Mary's womb
standingfirminChrist
New Member
DHK said:But that is not what the Bible says is it?
In fact that is grave error.
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.
--This statement by the angel to Joseph was made nine months before Jesus was born. "That which is in you is in the present tense as already existing. What is already existing, SFIC, nine months before Christ was born?
And why was there a nine month difference between the ages of John the Baptist and Jesus?
Go back and study, there was no 9 month difference in John and Jesus' ages.
Also, that which was in Mary, was conceived of the Holy Ghost. It does not say it was a union of Mary's egg and the Holy Ghost, now did it?
I didn't think so.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
DHK said:And storks could easily deliver babies to our doorstep.
Now who is being unscriptural?
Funny indeed!! And did you expect to read about zygote, meiosis, mitosis, uterus, placenta, and all the other terms that go along with the birth of a child? How much understanding did you expect of Mary at that time of our modern day biological terms?standingfirminChrist said:Funny, I do not see the word 'ovum' in the verse you posted.
This is the explanation that she received:
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
It is inconceivable that God the Son, the Creator of the universe would be called a "thing." But at that point in time, when Mary could not even tell that she was pregnant, there was a fertilized egg, an embryo, existing within her.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
You can say that Mary provided an egg all you want, but Scripture does not back that statement up.
I have emailed a Christian friend who taught biology asking her concerning the woman having a seed. Will let you know what she says. But I bet you won't like it.
I have emailed a Christian friend who taught biology asking her concerning the woman having a seed. Will let you know what she says. But I bet you won't like it.
I have given you Scripture; you have given me opinion. I know which I will believe.standingfirminChrist said:You can say that Mary provided an egg all you want, but Scripture does not back that statement up.
I have emailed a Christian friend who taught biology asking her concerning the woman having a seed. Will let you know what she says. But I bet you won't like it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.