Spin-off of the Dr. Morris thread - Was Mary Jesus' biological mother?

Yes. Paul says that Jesus Christ was the seed of Abraham. That could only be true if Mary was the physical mother of Jesus Christ, not just a borrowed womb.

 

The New Testament constantly refers to Mary as Jesus' mother. Seems that this is the authority.

So yes, Mary is the mother of Jesus.

 

I had the privilege of seeing and hearing Dr. Morris speak several times and I have some of his books. He was a great man of God and I am sure that he knows he was wrong on this one by now.:smilewinkgrin:

 

I never had the honor of seeing him in person, but I am glad I will be able to correct that one of these days.

 

If the sin nature is passed through the man only, then if (or when) a human female is cloned, she won't have the sin nature and will be perfect. Is this what you're saying?

 

If they clone her using her DNA then the clone will be made in the exact likeness of the person from who it came. They aren't creating something but are re-creating it again just 'as it was'.

 

Then Jesus would have been in the "likeness" of Mary and would not have been sinless. So the woman must pass the sin nature on as well.

I'm not debating. I'm asking questions. This stuff just pops in my head. Dangerous, I know. :laugh:

 

Umm. No, not in the manner of cloning. Jesus was not Mary's clone. Otherwise He would be Mary - just duplicated.

However, in manner of creating a human being- yes. He was after her likeness because He clothed Himself in flesh. The woman provides or creates the vessel (body) which all mankind have. Thus it was through Mary that via the process of conception and gestation God clothed Himself in flesh.

The flesh (even corrupted - suseptable to all ailments, even death) that is not created bound to sin may still be tempted because it has basic desires, but it is not bound to obey it in negitive manner (sinful manner). Like Adam and Eve, they did not have to disobey God because they were bound to sin, they choose to. Desire is neither evil or God but the pursuit to fulfill said desire(s) determines whether it is sinful or not.

Thus Mary creates the very vessel (body) that Christ has which, yes, is affected by the fall (not sin). And in the flesh He will and does grow older, tired, weary, sleepy, hungry (you get the idea). However regarding the process of conception, without another 'person' to bring to procedure into being of creating life in the manner that God designed, then if body was to try to form you will have nothing since it can not grow because it is not alive or have life. The other part is brought into being by male who's seed it is that generates the 'life' within. It is from him that sin transfers because it is from him life comes.

Let me ask you these questions:
Do you ever read at any point in scripture (whether explicitely or implicitely) of sin passing from the mother to the children?
What about the father?

 

Amy, I noticed you were replying after I had done some editting.

So you might have to do a double check to make sure I didn't correct something :laugh:

 

I understand that, but my point is that He would have Mary's DNA including her sin nature.

Then He would have inherited all of her human qualities, including a sin nature. Unless you're saying she didn't have a sin nature. Isn't this why the Catholics like to say that Mary was sinless? If she had the same sin nature as you and me, should would have passed it down to her children. I don't know how you can get around that. I don't see anywhere in scripture that only men have sin natures. That's why I brought up cloning. Only the DNA of the female would be used. There would be no male DNA involved, thus eliminating the contribution of the sin nature by the father.

I take it that sin passes from one human to another through procreation.


I don't understand why it is so heretical to think that God gave Jesus a human body apart from Mary's egg. He created Adam from the dust, with no mother or father, yet he was just as human as you and me.

It is said in Hebrews that Jesus was of the order of Melchizedek, who had no mother or father.

It is also said that Jesus is the second Adam, who also had no mother or father.

Jesus said that He came down from heaven and that He always existed with the Father.

From what we know of DNA and genetics, we know that whatever qualities are present in the DNA of the mother will be passed to the children. Why does it exclude the human nature?



Hbr 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:


Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.




I hope this will post. I keep getting cut off and having to sign in again. I don't know if it's my computer or this website, but it's frustrating! :BangHead:

 

Yes, but DNA regards 'physical' attributes not spiritual.

No, only her 'human' qualities - those things of the flesh.

Why even bring that up Amy. You know full well that is not my argument nor does it even correlate to what I am saying.

The only information we have regarding that which is spiritual is revealed through scripture. Scripture says it is passed from the father. Can you show something else? I agree that we obtain a certain amount physical attributes from our parents but we can not make the supposition that DNA which are the building blocks that form organisms also create our spirits or spiritual natures.

Now Amy, did I say or anyone else for that matter, say or state that only men have sin natures?

And I showed you why it isn't feasable one different aspects. One to clone is to remake what already was existing. Secondly, DNA is specific to the natural or physical make up and attributes NOT spirutal things because they are not physical nor are make up of physical substance which DNA uses.

Who has made the accusation of heresy Amy?
Secondly, Adam and Eve were created without sin, and yes, they were human just like you and me. But they were not created with sin but without. Being human is something that is physically determined not something that is spiritually determined.

Thirdly, if Jesus was created any other way He has failed to fulfill those prophecy's with make Him being of the seed of David, meaning that He is of that blood line specifically of that 'seed'. Not mention those others as well.

Yes, refering to His ministry not lineage - context Amy, context.

Refering to Him being Man's second chance. Again context not spiritualization of passages. They say what they mean and mean what they say.
Christ had a mother and a Father and scripture bears witness to this Amy.

This is speaking of the pre-existance of Christ as God - context again is both Key and King.
This has nothing to due with how He was formed in His mothers womb.
Remember that if He was formed different than us and that He is not like us (regarding the flesh not sin) then He is not able to understand what we go through - as says the scripture. He is like us and in all ways tempted but without sin. We have a great high priest who is touched with our infinities (weakness).

Because DNA pertains to the physical and not the spiritual.

:BangHead: Context - Amy - context :BangHead:
It is speaking of the sacrifices animals which were shadows of the truth sacrifice which would be a literal man. God had already determined and planned out not only how but who will be that ulitmate offering. Thus a 'body' (human) was prepared and not that of an animal.

Again, AMY, Context!
You are spiritualizing these things which removes them from their context in order to give them whatever meaning we wish. Keep them in 'context'.

Are you going to some web site and to get these?
These arguments don't sound like you at all. You usually seem to seek context first but here you seem to be ignoring it.

We got it. Mine is going slow so it might be the server.

 

Allan,

Not neccesarily. Almighty God does not have to have a human being in order to have Jesus be completly God yet completly man.

All He had to do was make Jesus that way on His own, without Mary. Thats no problem for God.

Catholics and Orthodox, in their cluelessness, go ballistic when someone suggests that Mary was only the vessel, yet contributed nothing fleshly to Jesus. They claim that we are....:laugh:...stripping Christ of His humanity.

Needless to say, that is utter nonsense. Those holding that view are stripping Jesus of nothing.

I personally have no dog in this hunt. I have heard both views, and its such a non issue that I havent taken the time to give it any thought.

I simply dont care which view is true, because it affects nothing negatively.

Either way....Jesus is completly God and completely man. Period. With Mary, or without Mary, He is completely God and completely man.

And either way Mary gave birth to Jesus and took the role of His mother.


:godisgood:

 

Don't you bang your head at me! :laugh:

No. I didn't get it from a website. I told you this stuff just pops into my head. I don't know why. But it seems that when I talk about it, it helps me to get things straight. That probably makes no sense whatsoever. :tonofbricks:

I know it sounds like I'm debating you, but I'm not. Just throwing out questions about stuff I get on my mind. If it wasn't for this board, I would just sit and wonder about things without having anyone to bounce it off of. Thanks for your help. I understand what you're saying. You're right.
Thanks for listening to me. :wavey:

 

Amy,

Thats not heretical at all. Not in the least.

Absolutlely. :thumbs:

(By the way, I promise I'll never bang my head at you.) :smilewinkgrin:


:godisgood:

 

Ha! :laugh:

I appreciate that! I can be pretty annoying sometimes though! Just ask Allan! :laugh:

 

Ok, I had to go to the bathroom when I read that and almost didn't make due to laughing... that was just wrong!

And that is fine, like I said, it doesn't sound like you when you are typically debating. And yes it does make sense because I do it all time - only talking to myself. (my wife wants to throw something at me around that point in time) :laugh:

I only asked because I have debated with those who hold that view and use not only the same verses but also the same line of reasoning you seemed to give. Thus my curiousity about a website.

Amy, just so you know something about me. I talk and debate as though what I know is truth because that is what I understand. I do try not to be condesending or superior because I know I 'could' quite easily be wrong. Some people will say because of how I seem to come across as a know-it-all. This is not the case because though I stand seemingly resolute about the discussion I am in fact truly wanting to hear some better argument with proof that what I searched and found in the scriptures is not accurate.

IOW - I bedate like a man who will not be moved but I listen as man who could indeed be wrong.

I enjoy your posts even when we differ because no matter where we stand on non-essentials we always stand on the same side when it comes to the essentials of the truth.

 

Why do we have two genealogies in the gospels? One is the lineage of Mary (Luke), and one of the lineage of Joseph (Matthew). Matthew reads: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.......

Cheers,

Jim

 

I'm not debating you Ann, just want to ask you a question. Was Adam not like us? He didn't have a biological mother. Was his body different from ours? Did he not feel pain and temptation?