PDA

View Full Version : Did Jesus have any of Mary's DNA?


Plain Old Bill
12-02-2004, 11:56 AM
I heard this discussion on the radio the other day. What do you think?

dean198
12-02-2004, 12:14 PM
Difficult one...I don't know. Menno Simons didn't think so.

Johnv
12-02-2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
I heard this discussion on the radio the other day. What do you think? I think it's irrelevant to the Gospel and salvation. Interesting for discussion, to be sure, but let's not make doctrine out of it, which would result in taking the focus off the message of the Gospel.

Debby in Philly
12-02-2004, 01:04 PM
She was His physical mother, so I would say He would have had gotten the usual half of His genes from Her. It's the other half that is interesting to speculate about.

Maybe that's one reason why Jesus came before folks knew about that stuff.

Paul of Eugene
12-02-2004, 01:48 PM
If Mary had the normal femal gene complement, Jesus could conceivably have gotten most of the genes from Mary and doubled them, but from where would he get the x gene to become male?

Paul of Eugene
12-02-2004, 01:50 PM
If God created the x gene for Jesus by means of a miracle, and that seems to be the only choice, I wonder what patterns of inheritance would have been revealed by studying it?

Marcia
12-02-2004, 02:41 PM
The Bible calls Mary the mother of Jesus and we know that she conceived Him (though not in the normal way). So Jesus had to have Mary's DNA or he would not be totally human. If Jesus did not have human DNA, he would not have been human.

The part about the HS causing the conception is the part we can't understand or dissect, imo. It just shows us that Jesus was fully man and fully God.

Gershom
12-02-2004, 03:21 PM
I don't believe He did. She only carried Him and raised Him. God doesn't need natural means to make it happen.

Marcia
12-02-2004, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Gershom:
I don't believe He did. She only carried Him and raised Him. God doesn't need natural means to make it happen. So how was Jesus human? It is absolutely essential that Jesus have human DNA to be human.

Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. He says,
"I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises." And again,
"I will put my trust in him." And again he says,
"Here am I, and the children God has given me."
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil-- and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Heb 2.11-17

Gershom
12-02-2004, 04:13 PM
You don't think God can create DNA without the help of Mary's? I'm asking. I haven't studied the issue at all.

How can Jesus be made up of Mary's DNA and not carry that sin nature?

Dr. Bob
12-02-2004, 04:38 PM
Most Baptists believe that the sin nature is passed on from the male DNA. Hence the need for a "virgin birth" where the MALE DNA was not implanted, but the Spirit of God planted HIS seed to make the other half of the DNA.

So you have the DNA from Mary (no sin nature) and that of the Spirit (no sin nature). Hence the perfect and sinless GOD-MAN.

Marcia
12-02-2004, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Gershom:
You don't think God can create DNA without the help of Mary's? I'm asking. I haven't studied the issue at all.

How can Jesus be made up of Mary's DNA and not carry that sin nature? I think the fact that the Bible tells Mary she will be the mother of Jesus and that Jesus is conceived in her womb, and that in Heb 2 and elsewhere it clearly tells us Jesus was a man like us, it is only logical to conclude Jesus had Mary's DNA. For God to create some DNA apart from Mary seems sneaky and very much not like God, especially when He chooses Mary and tells her she will conceive. Then Jesus would not really be Mary's son at all.

Jesus did not get Mary's sin nature because he also had God's nature and was God before he was incarnated. Maybe the God nature overrides the sin nature in the DNA, or maybe sin nature is not in DNA.

Bro Tony
12-02-2004, 04:55 PM
What do you think of Hebrews 10:5

5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:


"Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me. NKJV
I don't know that I believe the thing about the sin gene being only in the male. Jesus also could and would be completely human in the same sense as Adam & Eve were, they were created completely human. To believe in the sin gene would make our sinful condition biological and could lead to the RC doctrine of Mary's sinlessness. What do you all think about the above verse and thoughts.

Bro Tony

KeithS
12-02-2004, 05:01 PM
For what it's worth - Jesus had to be a son of David to qualify for the covenant Kingdom. Mary was an offspring of David, through which the Messiah was born. He had her DNA.

robycop3
12-02-2004, 05:10 PM
It would be impossible for us to determine w/o having samples from each of them.

Jesus had all the physical characteristics of a typical Jewish male of the time, except he didn't sin, and was quite physically fit and strong. ( Carpentry at the time involved mucho physical labor. and Jesus physically threw a whole gang of merchants from the temple.) Evidently He was of average stature and facial appearance as Isaiah said there was nothing about His appearance to make His people love Him.

As others have said, He was both wholly man and wholly God.

LadyEagle
12-02-2004, 07:01 PM
Although Jesus was clearly legally related to both parents (to Mary, by being born from her, and to Joseph by legal adoption), was he genetically related to them or to his brothers and sisters?

For thousands of years, every human child has been born with an inherited sin nature and sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). This is a result of our sinful first parents, Adam and Eve to whom we are all genetically related. Each generation (without exception) has sinned (Rom. 3:23) and passed on its sinful nature and the curse of death, to each succeeding generation (the biblical doctrine of imputation of sin - Romans 5:12-19). There is only one exception in history. Although Jesus grew in the womb of Mary, in the same manner as any baby, he was different from all other babies. It appears that he was not genetically related to either Mary or Joseph, for both had an inherited sin nature. Jesus was sinless, and one may reasonably assume without genetic flaw, since he was to serve as the spotless and sacrificial Lamb of God.

Ever since the Creation, each subsequent life has been created at the moment of conception. Scientifically, the new entity begins at the moment the DNA of man and woman combine. This was not the case with Jesus. As a spirit and part of the Trinity, Jesus existed before the Creation of the world. In fact, John reveals that he is the Creator (John 1).

Furthermore, the physical body of Jesus as born in Bethlehem was clearly a special creation of God, placed in Mary's womb. This is the biblical doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

Thus, neither Christ's spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary's egg or from any man's sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve's sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin--from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be--he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29). Christian Answers (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/mary-motherofjesus.html)

This explains precisely why I have always believed that Jesus had Divine Blood. Sin nature is inherited from humankind.

So the Divine Blood issue goes right along with this DNA issue. (sigh)

We are, after all, talking about the Creator here. The One Who Created EVERYTHING! Even the first human. smile.gif

Dr. Bob
12-02-2004, 07:31 PM
Jeus was the Seed of Woman (not man). That is Bible and seems sufficient. In that way alone could He be 100% man.

If a fully fertilized embryo were dropped into Mary's womb, she would have been the carrier of God. But not a man.

It was her embryo (with 1/2 the DNA of course) and God the Spirit's sperm cell (with the other 1/2 DNA needed to form a fully God/fully human incarnate God.

Anything less will lead us into the heresy of Arianism. They fought this out centuries ago!

Bro Tony
12-02-2004, 07:37 PM
Who created the first man, was he completely man?
If God created the first man, did He not create the body of the Christ Child? What about the verse in Hebrews 10:5, does it mean anything to this discussion. If it does how does it lead to heresy?

Bro Tony

Johnv
12-02-2004, 07:39 PM
I reiterate what I said earlier. The makeup of Jesus' DNA is irrelevant to the Gospel and salvation. Interesting for discussion, to be sure, but let's not make doctrine out of it, which would result in taking the focus off the message of the Gospel.

Bro Tony
12-02-2004, 07:46 PM
I agree John, just wondering what relation people feel the verse in Hebrews has to do with the subject.

Bro Tony

menageriekeeper
12-02-2004, 08:42 PM
If Christ didn't have Mary's DNA and if Christ didn't have a sin nature (that is the urge to sin) then how could Satan have tempted him to sin? Can someone without a sin nature be tempted to sin?

The whole idea behind the Perfect Sacrifice is that while Christ was fully human and could be tempted, he conquered the the temptation, didn't sin and thus became the perfect Lamb.

If it wasn't possible for Him to sin then what was gained by His sinlessness?

OldRegular
12-02-2004, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Marcia:
The Bible calls Mary the mother of Jesus and we know that she conceived Him (though not in the normal way). So Jesus had to have Mary's DNA or he would not be totally human. If Jesus did not have human DNA, he would not have been human.

The part about the HS causing the conception is the part we can't understand or dissect, imo. It just shows us that Jesus was fully man and fully God. Good post Marcia.

joyfulkeeperathome
12-02-2004, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
If Mary had the normal femal gene complement, Jesus could conceivably have gotten most of the genes from Mary and doubled them, but from where would he get the x gene to become male? Well, technically, the x gene comes from Mary, a Y gene is also needed to become a man. Men are XY and women are XX....hope this makes sense...

Phillip
12-02-2004, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Most Baptists believe that the sin nature is passed on from the male DNA. Hence the need for a "virgin birth" where the MALE DNA was not implanted, but the Spirit of God planted HIS seed to make the other half of the DNA.

So you have the DNA from Mary (no sin nature) and that of the Spirit (no sin nature). Hence the perfect and sinless GOD-MAN. Very interesting concept Dr. Bob.

Personally, I do believe he carried Mary's genes. This was part of the sacrifice for MAN,

He had to become a man and that would have probably been from His own set of Genes (created specifically for this reason, since God does not have genes, I would not imagine.).

As far as the X chromosome, no problem with God doing the artificial insemination.

Born of a virgin, also, at least to me, implies that she was more than just a carrier; otherwise, a virgin today can carry an embryo from conception to birth....this would definitely NOT be the miracle that occurred when God became man. It seems to imply that she (the virgin Mary) was not just implanted, but one of her eggs was fertilized with sinless DNA.

Oh, Dr. Bob, does the DNA carry the sin? We may not know what carries the sin yet, and although it probably does come from the man, why do we have to believe it comes from DNA?

And, another thing to think about. If a woman is cloned, does the clone not have sin, since there is no male to provide the sin "molecule" or "seed"?

LadyEagle
12-02-2004, 09:20 PM
Anything less will lead us into the heresy of Arianism. They fought this out centuries ago! Dr. Bob, on the Internet it says: Arianism is the heresy propagated by Arius denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

That is exactly the opposite of what I posted. :eek:

OldRegular
12-02-2004, 09:22 PM
God revealed to Isaiah the miraculous nature of the birth of the Messiah, the seed of Abraham. He would be born to a virgin, thus fulfilling the promise made in Eden that the Redeemer would be the seed of woman.

Isaiah 7:14, KJV
14. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

That the prophecy recorded in Isaiah is valid is shown in the record of the Apostle Matthew and the physician Luke.

Luke 1:26-28a; 30b-35, KJV
26. And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.
28a. And the angel came in unto her, and said, ....
30b. Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34. 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.

We see here that Jesus Christ as the Seed of Abraham was through the work of the Holy Spirit, conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary, a daughter of Abraham. Jesus Christ had no human father. He received His human nature from the Virgin Mary alone. This truth has, unfortunately, been corrupted into grievous error by some who claim that Mary is the mother of God. Mary is the mother of the human nature of the God-man, Jesus Christ, not the Divine nature. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, an eminent British pastor of Westminster Chapel during the 20th century, writes [God the Father, God the Son, page 262]: “As the Lord’s divine nature had no mother, so His human nature had no father.”

There are also some who wrongly teach that a completely new human nature was created for Jesus Christ [page 134f, The Modern Creation Triology, Volume 1, by Henry and John Morris]. If this were true He would not be the seed of Abraham, David, or the woman, Mary and is, therefore, directly contrary to Scripture. Martin Lloyd-Jones also clearly refutes this error by Morris and others in his book God the Father, God the Son, page 259ff.

Note that this Scripture also tells us that the work of the Holy Spirit was such that the human nature the Son took to Himself was sinless, i.e., that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. This does not say that Mary was sinless, which she was not, but only that the child was Holy or sinless. It is only because Jesus Christ was sinless that he was able to pay the penalty for our sins as well as those of His mother Mary. Scripture tells us:

1 Peter 1:18,19, NKJV
18. knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, [like] silver or gold, from your aimless conduct [received] by tradition from your fathers,
19. but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

Marcia
12-02-2004, 09:30 PM
If Jesus did not have Mary's DNA, then he could not fit the description of Hebrews 2 -- he would not be related to us in his incarnation.

This reminds me not of Arianism but more of Docetism, the belief that Jesus could not be fully human as man is because the flesh is tainted by evil.

As Dr. Bob pointed out, Gen 3.15 foretells the crushing of the serpent by the "seed" of the woman.

According to Heb 2, if Jesus was not made like us "in every way," (v. 17) then He could not redeem us.

LadyEagle
12-02-2004, 11:20 PM
From the Internet:

In Christianity, Docetism is the belief that Jesus Christ did not have a physical body; rather, that his body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion.

I never implied or indicated that Jesus Christ did not have a physical body, or that He was an illusion. Try again.

Genesis 3:15 talks about both the woman's seed and the serpent's seed. If the woman's "seed" (DNA) is literal, then who is Satan's seed (DNA)?

And where did the First Adam get his DNA?

Marcia
12-03-2004, 12:31 AM
I said it reminded me of Docetism, not that it was.

The main argument for Jesus not having DNA is thinking he had to inherit a sin nature by having Mary's DNA. But there is no Biblical reason to believe that DNA transmits sin. In fact, the more I think about it, the more that seems like a gnostic idea -- that matter can be evil.

I think the sin nature is transmitted just as part of the fallen human nature -- and that is a spiritual condition. Jesus did inherit some of the fallen physical nature -- getting tired, thirsty, and hungry, for example. But it is not evil to feel tired or hungry. I think the sin nature is transmitted another way -- not through DNA. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in thinking that Jesus had Mary's DNA.

I keep going back to Hebrews, and that convinces me more than the man-made arguments here. Having a special DNA made secretly apart from God is not indicated in the Bible, imo. He was the new Adam because he redeemed men that had fallen through the old Adam.

Ben W
12-03-2004, 07:57 AM
I dont think that Marys egg was used.

If it was, then the Roman Catholic Church would have a claim on being able to use the title "Mother of God".

Consider that carefully. How does that affect the Christian Trinity if Mary is the "Mother of God" because she a created human gave DNA to God.

Charles Meadows
12-03-2004, 08:27 AM
"I dont think that Marys egg was used.

If it was, then the Roman Catholic Church would have a claim on being able to use the title "Mother of God". "

What has this got to do with theology. We should not be developing theology based on what it would or wouldn't do to the RCC's claims.

LadyEagle
12-03-2004, 08:32 AM
Exactly, Ben. No one has yet answered the question: Who created Adam's DNA? Instead of trying to stick some handy label (that doesn't fit) on the concept of Jesus Christ having divine blood, why not discuss it from Scripture?

And what if His blood WAS divine - does that mean those who don't believe it was are believing in the "wrong Jesus" - the accusation that has been leveled about some other denominations?

Was it His blood that saved us or not? If that blood was human blood, how could that pay for sin? Unless female blood is not sinful - yet the Bible says ALL have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. There is NONE righteous, no, not one!

And, who was Satan's seed?

HankD
12-03-2004, 08:57 AM
Did Jesus have any of Mary's DNA?I would say yes.

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.

"under the law" He was mortal, subject to death, He received the penalty of sin (death) from Mary but not the ability to sin (ohoh, enter the impeccability dunnybrook).

NKJV Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that
Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

HankD

Marcia
12-03-2004, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Ben W:
I dont think that Marys egg was used.

If it was, then the Roman Catholic Church would have a claim on being able to use the title "Mother of God".

Consider that carefully. How does that affect the Christian Trinity if Mary is the "Mother of God" because she a created human gave DNA to God. The Mother of God statement originally came about to refute a heresy that Jesus was not God. The statement was to affirm the deity of Christ -- it was not about Mary.

We cannot divide Jesus' human and divine nature --he was not a two-part being but one Being fully God and fully man, the human/God nature neither divided nor confused. So Mary was the mother of God the son in his human incarnation. Just because some people misuse the meaning of that does not mean Jesus did not have Mary's DNA.

From the Chalcedon Creed
We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten - in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one reality <hypostasis>. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word <Logos> of God, the Lord Jesus Christ

Debby in Philly
12-03-2004, 02:58 PM
Bottom line, this is all a facinating mind game.

It really doesn't matter, does it?

Jesus is the "only begotten of the Father." That's all that matters.

Marcia
12-03-2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by LadyEagle:

Was it His blood that saved us or not? If that blood was human blood, how could that pay for sin? Unless female blood is not sinful - yet the Bible says ALL have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. There is NONE righteous, no, not one!
I don't think blood can be sinful. If Jesus did not have human blood, he was not fully human and therefore could not redeem us (see Heb 2).

If God created Jesus separately apart from Mary's DNA, then he must have made Jesus imperfectly because Jesus thirsted, hungered and got tired. I don't think God did this (create Jesus physically apart from Mary's DNA). These are physical characteristics of being human that Jesus got from Mary's DNA. But he did not get a sin nature from Mary because there is no reason to believe sin is carried in DNA.

Michael52
12-03-2004, 05:11 PM
I don't think that man's sin nature is passed on in the DNA. God created Adam with proper and fully functioning DNA (necessary for normal human physiological functions). Adam and Eve were originally sinless, since they had not sinned they had no sin nature. The sin nature came to them, and the rest of humanity, when they willfully disobeyed God. It seems to me, for the sin nature to be in the DNA, God would have had to "mutate" their original DNA. I don't think their DNA was changed, but their spirit(s) died due to their sin. Their eventual physical deaths were due to their banishment from the garden and the tree of life. The fall was, and is, a spiritual problem, not a physical problem.

Jesus' DNA (well, 1/2 anyway) was fully human and was from Mary. We know He had no sin nature because He never sinned. We know we have a sin nature because we have sinned. We cannot be saved unless (until) we are convicted (convinced) of this fact. That's why our only hope, as humans, is to be found in Him. His blood cleanses us because He was sinless. That is what makes His blood "special".

No doubt there is probably somebody's theological heresy in the above. I'm just thinking (writing) out loud. graemlins/saint.gif

Ben W
12-03-2004, 08:50 PM
If Jesus has Marys DNA, then she is a part of the Trinity. That is not something that I am prepared to accept whether or not it comes from Catholiscm in idea initially.

The Trinity is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Yet if Mary is Jesus Biological mother, then there would be a case to add Mary Mother of God. She would rightly be the Mother of a Divine member of the Godhead and a "Co-Creator" With God the Holy Spirit.

rsr
12-03-2004, 09:06 PM
That doesn't follow, Ben. Mary was mother, not of God, but of the God-man Jesus Christ, to whom she may have contributed DNA. Neither the Father, the Son nor the Holy Spirit has DNA, so she had no part in the Trinity.

LadyEagle
12-03-2004, 09:11 PM
Why would it be impossible for Jesus to have Divine Blood that flowed through human veins and arteries?

Daniel David
12-03-2004, 09:12 PM
Between Genesis 3:15 and Galatians 4:4, I would argue that he did have her DNA. Mary wasn't just the incubator for Christ.

Jesus had human blood. Hebrews 2 addresses the heresy that indicates Christ wasn't really human.

This would be my position on the matter.

Bottom line: Christ must be fully man and fully God.

Ben W
12-03-2004, 09:12 PM
Think about it this way.

Jesus was fully Man.

Jesus was also fully God.

If Jesus was fully God then Mary is the Mother of God if she gave Him his DNA.

Daniel David
12-03-2004, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Why would it be impossible for Jesus to have Divine Blood that flowed through human veins and arteries? Because Hebrews 2 says:

Verse 14
Therefore, since the children share in FLESH and BLOOD , He Himself like wise ALSO PARTOOK OF THE SAME , that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.

robycop3
12-03-2004, 09:26 PM
I look at it this way: when we talk about being saved through Jesus' blood we must remember how this came about...JESUS VOLUNTARILY SHED HIS BLOOD! Jesus, who is God, voluntarily became a man for awhile so He could live a sinless life as a man, thus providing us with His perfect example, became a man so he fould suffer and feel pain as we do, became a man so He could have blood to be shed through His suffering, became a man so He, after living a sinless life and introducing the New Covenant, could die and pay the penalty for OUR sins.

We should be thankful as our human nature can allow us when we realize HE, the REAL GOD, did something no fictional god has ever been credited with doing...DYING FOR HIS OWN CREATIONS, and dying a most shameful and painful death...so He could be raised from the dead, overcoming the works of the devil, then assuming His rightful place at His Father's right hand.

He was in a human body, and Mary is always called His mother. I have no idea what physical process God used to convert Him into a man, but I know He did it and that some day He Himself will tell us how. Who's to say right now what the makeup of His Deoplasm was at His incarnational conception?

rsr
12-03-2004, 09:26 PM
LE, just as with DNA, God doesn't have blood. He's a spirit. What flowed through his veins was human blood. Why would anyone want to say otherwise?

Michael52
12-03-2004, 09:29 PM
The Bible describes Mary as Jesus' mother. She was not mother of the pre-incarnate God the Son. She was mother of incarnate human Jesus.

Doesn't the Bible seem quite clear on this, regardless of various other extra-biblical doctrines?

rsr
12-03-2004, 09:30 PM
Bingo.

LadyEagle
12-03-2004, 10:30 PM
Got any more verses DD?

What about genetic defects and propensity for disease? Would these not have been inherited through Mary's DNA?

Am analyzing....

OldRegular
12-03-2004, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Exactly, Ben. No one has yet answered the question: Who created Adam's DNA? It is obvious. The one who created Adam created his DNA.

OldRegular
12-03-2004, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
"I dont think that Marys egg was used.

If it was, then the Roman Catholic Church would have a claim on being able to use the title "Mother of God". "

What has this got to do with theology. We should not be developing theology based on what it would or wouldn't do to the RCC's claims. If Mary's egg was not used then Jesus Christ is not the seed of Abraham and your statement is contrary to Scripture:

Galatians 3:16[KJV] Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.[/]

Hebrews 2:16[KJV] [b]For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

The Second London Confession of Faith states the following in Section 8 about Jesus Christ the Mediator:

2. The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with him who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made, [b]did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her; and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man. (John 1:14; Galatians 4;4; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17; Hebrews 4:15; Matthew 1:22, 23; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 2:5 )

3. The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, to the end that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, he might be throughly furnished to execute the office of mediator and surety; which office he took not upon himself, but was thereunto called by his Father; who also put all power and judgement in his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same. (Psalms 45:7; Acts 10:38; John 3:34; Colossians 2:3; Colossians 1:19; Hebrews 7:26; John 1:14; Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 5:5; John 5:22, 27; Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:36 )

It has already been posted but bears repeating. The Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D) presented the following definition of the Incarnate God, the God -man, Jesus Christ: [Note that the wording of the second article above is very similar to that of the Council of Chalcedon.]

“Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.”

The use of the term God-bearer by the Council of Chalcedon has been corrupted by the Roman and Eastern Orthodox denominations to mean Mother of God. However as I noted in an earlier post: Mary is the mother of the human nature of the God-man, Jesus Christ, not the Divine nature. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, an eminent British pastor of Westminster Chapel during the 20th century, writes [God the Father, God the Son, page 262]: “As the Lord’s divine nature had no mother, so His human nature had no father.”

There are also some who wrongly teach that a completely new human nature was created for Jesus Christ [page 134f, The Modern Creation Trilogy, Volume 1, by Henry and John Morris]. As I noted earlier, if this were true He would not be the seed of Abraham, David, or the woman, Mary and is, therefore, directly contrary to Scripture. Martin Lloyd-Jones also clearly refutes this error by Morris and others in his book God the Father, God the Son, page 259ff.

LadyEagle
12-03-2004, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Exactly, Ben. No one has yet answered the question: Who created Adam's DNA? It is obvious. The one who created Adam created his DNA. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly! So why wouldn't the One Who created the First Adam and his DNA, also create the Second Adam and His DNA from scratch?

Dr. Bob
12-03-2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by LadyEagle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Anything less will lead us into the heresy of Arianism. They fought this out centuries ago! Dr. Bob, on the Internet it says: Arianism is the heresy propagated by Arius denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ. That is exactly the opposite of what I posted. :eek: </font>[/QUOTE]The conflict of Arianism was over whether Jesus was MAN or GOD. Arian said all man and not God. Some misinformed Christians said all God and not man. The conclusion was that He was the son of Mary (duh) 100% man AND son of God so 100% God.

You are on the side that He was all God. You are as wrong as were the early believers. That is all part of the Arian controversy.

And, like I said, it WAS settled. Until this thread, I would have denied that ANY baptist would have held to either error and denied the God-man His position as, well, the GOD-MAN!

LadyEagle
12-03-2004, 11:49 PM
You are on the side that He was all God.
No, I am not. I have never said or implied and do not believe that. Don't put words in my mouth, Dr. Bob. Please.

That is the same type of argument as saying a person is either a Calvinist or an Armenian. Everything is not either/or. Sometimes it is both.

Marcia
12-03-2004, 11:56 PM
Exactly! So why wouldn't the One Who created the First Adam and his DNA, also create the Second Adam and His DNA from scratch? Because then he would not fit the description of Heb. 2 - he would not be like man 'in every way.'

Also, that would mean that God made a defective DNA for Jesus because Jesus did get tired, hungry and thirsty.

DNA does not have sin so there is no problem for Jesus to have Mary's DNA. The sin nature is a spiritual separation from God, something we get as fallen men. Jesus, being God, could get Mary's DNA without getting the fallen nature since it is not passed in the DNA.

OldRegular
12-04-2004, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by LadyEagle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Exactly, Ben. No one has yet answered the question: Who created Adam's DNA? It is obvious. The one who created Adam created his DNA. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly! So why wouldn't the One Who created the First Adam and his DNA, also create the Second Adam and His DNA from scratch? </font>[/QUOTE]Because Scripture said the Redeemer would be the seed of woman [Genesis 3:15], the seed of Abraham [Galatians 3:16]. Scripture is either true or it is not. I believe it to be the inerrant Word of God.

LadyEagle
12-04-2004, 12:05 AM
DNA does not have sin DNA carries the propensity for disease which is the result of sin. Through the study of DNA, a person can find out if they have the cancer gene, and other genes of disease and defects as well. So, yes, I would say DNA has sin and the effects of sin.

Also, that would mean that God made a defective DNA for Jesus because Jesus did get tired, hungry and thirsty.

DNA is not what makes a person get thirsty, tired, and hungry. The results of sin is what causes humans to be tired, thirsty, and hungry. Glorified bodies will not need sleep, water, or food. So that dog won't hunt.

It is entirely possible to have Divine blood flowing through human veins. The life is in the blood.

Plain Old Bill
12-04-2004, 12:14 AM
If the Egg of Mary was not used (supplying her DNA)how could the geneology of Jesus be traced back to Abraham or David?Was,nt Abraham promised that the Redeemer would come through his seed?

LadyEagle
12-04-2004, 12:17 AM
Although Jesus grew in the womb of Mary, in the same manner as any baby, he was different from all other babies. It appears that he was not genetically related to either Mary or Joseph, for both had an inherited sin nature. Jesus was sinless, and one may reasonably assume without genetic flaw, since he was to serve as the spotless and sacrificial Lamb of God.

LadyEagle
12-04-2004, 12:39 AM
Okay, done analyzing:


God did not just live in flesh as a man, but the "Word became flesh" (John 1:14). God is now a man in addition to being Spirit. God becoming a man does not mean He no longer exists as the omnipresent Spirit, but it does mean that His existence as a man is both authentic and permanent. Jesus did not merely put on a "robe of flesh" when He came to this earth. There was no separation of natures within Jesus as though He is two separate individuals living in one body. The flesh of Christ is not a mere shell that Deity moves within, and neither is Jesus' humanity independent of the His deity. In Christ the Spirit of God was inextricably and inseparably joined with the humanity.

&lt;snip&gt;

Mary was not a mere surrogate mother for a flesh created by God. She was not some sort of incubator which contained a 'heavenly flesh.' The flesh truly originated from Mary's egg. If Jesus did not receive His humanity from Mary, then He could not be said to have been "of the seed of David." The Scripture clearly affirms the contribution Mary made to the existence of Jesus. Galatians 4:4 says, 'But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.' The Greek word translated 'of' in the phrase 'of a woman' is ek. This word means 'out of.' Jesus was made out of a woman, He wasn't just born out of one. The author of Hebrews said 'he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham' (Hebrews 2:16). David was promised that it was through his genetic line that God would raise up the Messiah to rule on his throne (Psalm 132:11). If Mary was just an incubator for a created flesh, Jesus could have still been considered a genuine human being (Adam was a created man that didn't have a human mother but yet he was still completely human), but He wouldn't have been part of the Adamic race. If He was not part of the Adamic race, He couldn't save those who were separated from God because of Adam's sin (Romans 5:12-21; Hebrews 2:9-10, 14-18). Mary undoubtedly contributed to the humanity of Christ.Source (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/becomeman.htm)

Case closed.

rsr
12-04-2004, 07:17 AM
An interesting defense of the hypostatic union, LE, but the author also denies that the Son existed before the Incarnation.

HankD
12-04-2004, 09:37 AM
I remember as a kid hearing a song which had the words which went something like this:

When an immovable object meets an irresistable force something's got to give.

IMO Jesus relationship with humanity and sin is reflected in the word "flesh" or Grk. sarx which word only has bad PR in the Scriptures.

"And the Word was made flesh". The Logos (God) was made flesh (human). We (or at least I) can't fully understand this but we can all believe it.

Somehow Jesus the Logos "The Holy one" was made into the "sarx".

The conflict this caused turned into the Agony in the Garden and ended with Jesus obedience to the death on the cross. He could not/would not sin even though it cost Him His mortal life being motivated as God out of His love for us and out of His humanity in obedience to the Father.

It is a wonderful and glorious mystery which we will contemplate for eternity. The seed of the woman who entered our sinful bloodline (yet without sin) to save us from so great a death.

HankD

Daniel David
12-04-2004, 09:42 AM
Ladyeagle, I would simply say that it is the corruption of sin that actually causes disease and ultimately death.

Since Christ did not have the sin nature, there was nothing within him to cause corruption.

Remember, even in death, his body did not decay. This was a preaching point for Peter on Pentecost.

Kiffen
12-04-2004, 10:20 AM
The early Council of Chalcedon AD 451 declared that Jesus received His humanity from Mary without her sin nature and imperfections and saw this as a miracle. To try to logically explain this is to go where angels fear to tread. The traditional orthodox view of both Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians is the view of the Chalcedonian Council which along with Nicea is viewed as the standard of orthodoxy regarding Christology.


The other option does border on the Celestial flesh view that Menno Simmons propagated. That view bordered on the heresy of Arius. Most Anabaptists later rejected Simmons unorthodox view.

LadyEagle
12-04-2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by rsr:
An interesting defense of the hypostatic union, LE, but the author also denies that the Son existed before the Incarnation. Well, for pity's sake! Please find that for me in there, cause I surely didn't see that one! Good grief. :(

LadyEagle
12-04-2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Daniel David:
Ladyeagle, I would simply say that it is the corruption of sin that actually causes disease and ultimately death.

Since Christ did not have the sin nature, there was nothing within him to cause corruption.

Remember, even in death, his body did not decay. This was a preaching point for Peter on Pentecost. Thank you, DD, for pointing that out. smile.gif

Marcia
12-04-2004, 08:29 PM
DNA is not what makes a person get thirsty, tired, and hungry. The results of sin is what causes humans to be tired, thirsty, and hungry. Glorified bodies will not need sleep, water, or food. So that dog won't hunt.
LE, you say here that it's the results of sin that cause thirsty, hunger and being tired, but Jesus experienced all of these! My point was that he had these results but also did not have a sin nature; that is why I said DNA does not carry the sin nature, just these physical effects, which Jesus experienced.

It is entirely possible to have Divine blood flowing through human veins. The life is in the blood. If Jesus had divine blood, what would that be? God does not have blood; He's spirit. Moreover, if Jesus had divine blood, he would not have been fully man.

Marcia
12-04-2004, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Kiffen:
The early Council of Chalcedon AD 451 declared that Jesus received His humanity from Mary without her sin nature and imperfections and saw this as a miracle. To try to logically explain this is to go where angels fear to tread. The traditional orthodox view of both Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians is the view of the Chalcedonian Council which along with Nicea is viewed as the standard of orthodoxy regarding Christology.
Right, that's why I posted the Chalcedon Creed on p. 3 of this thread! smile.gif

The other option does border on the Celestial flesh view that Menno Simmons propagated. That view bordered on the heresy of Arius. Most Anabaptists later rejected Simmons unorthodox view Good points. graemlins/thumbs.gif

LadyEagle
12-04-2004, 08:56 PM
Marcia, you're beating a dead horse. I already conceded. graemlins/wave.gif

If someone would have posted John 1:14 about 5 pages ago, this thread could have ended sooner. tongue.gif

Marcia
12-04-2004, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Marcia, you're beating a dead horse. I already conceded. graemlins/wave.gif

If someone would have posted John 1:14 about 5 pages ago, this thread could have ended sooner. tongue.gif Oh, okay! :D

Wish I had thought of Jn 1.14! smile.gif graemlins/wave.gif