Featured The Son of God and our sin nature … wow!

Yes, the wonder of the gospel is still a "wow" isn't it? It is a precious truth that is so attacked by Satan and his forces.

 

evan

Let me ask you this. If Mary's other children would have been virgin born, would they be born sinners ?

In other words, if Mary's body could produce an egg, and supernaturally fertilize itself, and bring forth a child, would that child be a sinner coming from Mary ?

 

First that would be impossible because there is only ONE Eternal Word. So speculation according to that line of thinking is worthless. Such virgin births demand God as the Father and therefore multiple Sons of God.

Second, it is clear that Mary is called his "mother" and every mother contributes an egg for conception. That egg was given conception by God thus making Jesus both the Son of man and the Son of God - fully human and fully divine.

Third, the sin nature is directly attributed to the male (Rom. 5:12) not to the femail but the promise of the Messiah is from the "seed of the woman" not the seed of the man.

 

bib

Nothing is impossible if it's God's will ! If that was not the case, a woman having a child without the male sperm would not be possible as well. Have you heard of another woman having virgin born children ?

Now answer the question !

 

It is impossible for God to lie
It is impossible for God to create another god.
It is impossible for the virgin birth to be repeated to others as there is but ONE God the Son.

 

With today's technology you could actually take a female egg fertilize it with just her genetic material and voila! A Virgin birth (clone). would the clone then inherit the woman's sin nature as it wasn't fertilized by a male sperm?

 

Ok! But that is not the virgin kind of birth that SBM is suggesting that could be repeated.

 

True, but it brings up a lot of questions.

 

Jesus was/is the eternal Son of the Father, as to His divinity and God nature, while his humanity was created within womb of His Mother mary, and He is now both God and Man!

 

Answer the question !

 

Which would make his mother theotokos. Had to get that jab in. :laugh:

 

I just did! There is only one Divine Son of God and so there can be no other virgin births where one is both God and man - impossible!

 

Actually, mary was the Mother of His Humanity, NOT Mother of God!

 

From an article by Dr. Henry M. Morris..."When God Became Man"

How Could the Creator Become Man?

Since "by Him [that is by Christ, the Word of God] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth" (Colossians 1:16), He must have created the very body in which He would dwell when He "was made flesh." This body, however, could not be a body produced by the normal process of human reproduction, for it must be a body unmarred either by inherent sin spiritually or by inherited genetic defects physically or mentally.

It would necessarily have to be a perfect body, a body like that of the first man He had created long ago in the beautiful garden of Eden. He would, in fact, come to be called "the last Adam" (I Corinthians 15:45), since there would never be another man created as that "first Adam" had been.

There would be one important difference, however. The first Adam was created and made as a full-grown man, but the second must be "in all things . . . made like unto His brethren" (Hebrews 2:17). From conception to death, He must be "in all points . . . like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). In particular, His blood must be "precious blood . . . as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (I Peter 1:19), for that blood must be "offered . . . without spot to God" (Hebrews 9:14).

Thus the body of the second Adam must be formed directly by God and placed in a virgin's womb. This had been the very first promise made after the first Adam brought sin and death into the world. Speaking of "the woman, and . . . her seed," God said that He "shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel" (Genesis 3:15). This prophecy was addressed to Satan, whose lie had elicited Eve's sin. This wonderful body would not grow from a man's seed, as in every other human birth, nor would it grow from a woman's egg, for in either case a sin-carrying and mutation-carrying embryo would necessarily result. It must instead be a seed specially formed by the Creator Himself, then planted in the virgin's womb, where it forthwith would become His "tabernacle" for thirty-three years as He lived on His planet Earth among those He had come to save.

"Lo, I come," He would later promise through David (Psalm 40:7). Through Isaiah He said: "(The) virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son," and that babe would also be "the mighty God, the everlasting Father" (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6). Still later, another great prophet could anticipate that "The LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall compass a man" (Jeremiah 31:22).

Note that the "new thing" in the chosen woman must be "created." When the time came the angel assured young Mary that "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" (Luke 1:35).

Then, "when He cometh into the world, He saith, . . . a body hast thou prepared me" (Hebrews 10:5). Most significantly, He used the same word "prepared" (Greek, katartizo), which the writer of Hebrews also then would use when he testified that "the worlds were framed by the Word of God" (Hebrews 11:3), recognizing that the same living Word who had framed the worlds had also framed His own human body! And in that tiny cell in Mary's womb resided all the information not only for His own growth into manhood, but also for the creation, preservation, and redemption of the whole creation. It was His by right of creation and soon would be doubly His by right of redemption.

The entire article is here

 

Dr. Morris is a credible scholar although his Doctors degree is not in theology. His argument that Christ's body was prepared by direct creation in the womb of Mary as Adam's body was prepared directly by God and thus the last Adam has some merit as a theological position.

 

Amen Yeshua1! :thumbs:

Mary was the mother of Jesus as a man (His humanity); the eternal Son of God had no beginning!

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

 

1Tim4:4-7 nor to give heed to fables and endless genealogies (which provide doubts rather than the] nurture of God in faith).
5 But the end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned,
6 from which some, having swerved, have turned aside to foolish talking,
7 desiring to be teachers of the law, neither understanding what they say nor that which they affirm.
Would this line of questioning fall under This Scripture? Even if it doesn't nothing AT ALL can be said in response except : This is total speculation. During a time when you desire some light, humerus discussion on these things.

What if Adam and Eve had any children before sin? Could there Be a perfect race of pre-sin dependents of Adam & Eve? The list of speculations is endless...OR is it?

 

I think you probably meant 1 Timothy 1:4-7, not 1 Timothy 4:4-7:

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
1 Timothy 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
1 Timothy 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
1 Timothy 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

The context of those verses is a warning about those who pervert the gospel and seek to bring converts back under the bondage of the law. They should not be allowed to teach their doctrine or to ask their foolish questions.

Stating that Jesus was the eternal Son of the Father would not fall under the "foolish question" category. However, all the "what if" questions would definitely be considered "foolish", IMO.

God's Word isn't a book about "speculations".