The Birth and Nature of Christ

Apparently your view is not new.

They call it a mutilation of the doctrine of the virgin birth. It was never held by the early church. This is the Ebionite theory--the theory that you hold to, SFIC

 

ISBE is not the Bible, DHK.

They can call it heretical, satanistic in origin, spaceship, or anything else. It is not the Bible. It is man's view.

I will believe what the Lord showed me through the reading of the Word of God. The doctrine was taught by John... and the Word was made flesh.

It was taught by Paul... God, sending forth His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. (God dispatched His Son in the resemblance of sinful flesh) does not say He came in sinful flesh, but only what resembled sinful flesh.
It was taught by Isaiah... a virgin shall conceive. (be pregnant)... does not say get pregnant.
It was taught by the Physician Luke... and thou shalt conceive. (sieze, clasp)... that which God placed in her, she siezed a hold of in her womb.

 

Many Godly a Presbyterian scholar believed that the Holy Spirit showed them that infant baptism was taught in the Scriptures. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make their claim "the Holy Spirit showed me" correct either.

 

Doesn't the fact that this has been considered a heresy from the roots of Christianity onward even phase you?

 

That speaks to the divinity of Christ not his humanity.
In his deity he became flesh. It speaks nothing of the virgin birth.

Quite correct. That teaches that he avoided the sin nature of Adam; that he avoided the sperm of a man; that he was therefore conceived by the Holy Spirit.

One and the same thing in the Bible. 700 years before Christ (and during the time of Christ) they didn't have the technology of in vitro fertilization. Surrogate mothers were unheard of. And that was never promised to Mary, who said to the angel "How shall this be seeing I know (have not had sexual relations) not a man." Mary was referring to conception in Luke 1:34 and in verse 35 the angel answers her how conception would take place--through the operation of the Holy Spirit.

That is the funniest definition of conception I have ever heard. My wife conceived (with my help) four children. All four times the process was the same. You can read about it in any biology book. It was necessary that an egg be fertilized. God did not shoot some embryo or fetus through space and make a perfect 3 point landing in Mary's womb. That is not conception. It is heresy. Take heed to what the traditional church teaching on this subject is and don't read your own definitions into words, definitions that are contrary to the Word, and contrary to common sense.

 

Louis Matthew Sweet's article on the Virgin Birth in the ISBE was written in the early to mid-1900's.

I have produced articles from my SwordSearcher that have dated pre-1900's that have refuted Sweet's false belief.

 

Bet you won't find the birth of Christ in a biology book, as recorded by the Word of God.

You keep wanting to define the supernatural with the natural. It isn't gonna work.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

SFIC, you make up your own definitions!
If you don't understand what it means to conceive go to a biology book and find out. It does not mean "to seize or clasp." That is just ridiculous and made-up to try and fit into your own theology. Try using genuine definitions.

It is God that uses the natural.
He used a natural earthquake in the time Moses for judgement:

Deuteronomy 11:6 And what he did unto Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben: how the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and their tents, and all the substance that was in their possession, in the midst of all Israel:

Earthquakes are not miraculous events. But the timing of this earthquake is what made it miraculous.
God used Mary's egg. There is no reason to believe He didn't. There is every reason to believe he did not, not the least being that it leads to heresy, and a less than human Christ.

 

I know what conceive means, DHK. But Mary's conception was far from a natural biological conception. Hers was of a supernatural nature. It cannot be defined under natural definition of conception.

The Greek, and Hebrew, both give different words than our modern dictionaries of today give for the word 'conceive'.

I have demonstrated the conception was supernatural, yet you are wanting to bring it to a natural understanding. That cannot rightly be done.

Comparing an earthquake to Mary's conception is comparing apples and oranges. A conception is not an earthquake.

 

The Greek portion is different from what you said above.

Luke 3:

23 Και αυτοσ ην ο Ιησουσ ωσει ετων τριακοντα αρχομενοσ, ων ωσ ενομιζετο υιοσ Ιωσηφ του Ηλι, του ΜατΘατ του Λευι του Μελχι

The red letter portion is included in all manuscripts as far as I know.
The only exception is that 2 Roman catholic manuscripts B and Aleph have them transpositioned, like υιοσ Ιωσηφ ων ωσ ενομιζετο.

Therefore there is not so much variance among the texts/manuscripts, but there is only a few transpositioned.

As I mentioned, it is very simple as following:

Jesus... Son of Joseph tou Heli -tou Mattthat tou Leui tou Ianna.....

Do you believe Talmud? Do you reject Sola Scriptura? Then you are far away from the Christian believers. Your theory may not be able to stand without Talmud. My Belief stands on Sola Scripturs - Word became Flesh ( Jn 1:14)

 

So, why do you not accept this as the truth, instead of trying to find scripture around it, of which you have not? No one that I know of is denying that Jesus took a body of flesh. He didn't have to leave Heaven and come down here and die.

Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

 

I have to wonder what this is accomplishing.

 

Bob, look up the Greek. 'seed of David' does not infer bloodline, only family. Christ was born in his family, but because God placed Him in the womb of Mary. Not because of her egg or another man's sperm cell.

 

I also am beginning to wonder. Those who will not hear, will not hear.

 

One thing that we should consider is this:

Is the Biological Motherhood more honorable and graceful or Surrogate Motherhood is more honorable?

I am asking about the honor and glory to Mary and to David's family.

Biological Motherhood means that she offered the part of her flesh or the fruit of her body. But in this case we must remember that the body of Mary was sin stricken, polluted since the Fall of the first Adam.
Despite much of my explanation, many do not know the importance of Blemish and Spotless Body and Blood. Was it OK if Jesus had the disease of Leukemia? Can we still say that Jesus offered the blemish sacrifice despite His blindness or deaf, or with down syndrome? It is not limited to the physical defects but we should remember some people are quick to anger like Adolf Hitler.
Who is free of any human defects among the people who are born of women? ( Job 25:4)

Is Offering the ovum of the defective human race more honorable than receiving the sinless, blemish, spotless body of the Christ in her body ?

Surrogacy is not merely downgrading Mary, but returning to the Truth that we human beings cannot offer anything to God, instead it is a great honor and grace that she received the sinless person Jesus Christ in her body, which was not offered to any other women in the world. The Christian Truth is that we have nothing to offer to God but to receive from Him.
Offering the egg of a woman may be like the sacrifice of Cain who offered the fruits of the Earth by his own efforts and works, while Abel offered the sacrifice of the Blood and Fat of the Lamb which is the symbol of Jesus Christ offered by God.
In that aspect, Mary was blessed, not because she was a specially talented or sinless, but because she simply accepted the grace from God.

I already mentioned the body itself is not the source of sin, but it has been stricken by sins thru the ages and lost the capacity to live for the justice and for the Glory of God. No one can be free of defects.

Nobody continues to explain how the Word became Flesh while the egg of Mary was used. But the Truth stands - The Word became Flesh, there was the Life in the Word.

 

So, in the end, Joseph could not of had anything to do with the birth of Christ, for he "knew her not" until Jesus was born. According to this research, both Joseph and Mary were seed of David:

--Both Ignatius (Ephesians 18) and Justin Martyr (Adv Trypho 100) also testify to the fact that Mary is of the seed of David

And according to the Law of Moses in Numbers:


1. Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."
2. Num 36:6-7, "This is what the Lord commands with regard to the daughters of Salphahad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe, so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage."

Mary could indeed pass the seed of David to her Son, Jesus, and fulfill the following scripture.


Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

BBob,

 

It is you that do not accept the Bible as it is. You are the one who tried to distort the Bible by omitting the name of Joseph. Why didn't you include the name of Mary in the genealogy, then you could have successfully manufactured a bible.

The Bible clearly says The Word became Flesh, while you say Jesus took a flesh out of Mary.

Rome 1:3 says that Jesus Christ came out of the Seed of David, which means that He came out of the descendant of David.

How could you explain Word became flesh while Seed of David was used?

 

Mary did not pass the seed, BBob. Women have no seed to pass. Mary bore the Son of God, who was the seed prophesied of in Genesis 3:15.

 

Because He was 100 percent man and 100 percent God. IMO
And I did not leave the name of Joseph out of anything that I remember. Joseph according to scripture had no part in the birth of Christ, and to say so is distorting the scripture. IMO.

BBob,

 

A typical resort is the so-called church fathers when the people cannot find the support in the Bible.

Those OT bible mentions about the inheritance of the daughters. I do not ignore them, nor do I rule out the possibility that the genealogy of Luke is for Mary. But I do not rule out the possibility of Joseph's mother because Joseph's name is there but Mary's name is not there.

Do the OT verses omit the names of the daughters? Do they provide any clue for the Biological Motherhood?

Moreover this is not core issue either.

The real core issue is this:

1) How Biological Motherhood can be compatible with Incarnation.
How did Egg of Mary form a human form while the Word became Flesh.

2) How the sin nature of the Egg of Mary could be avoided.