The Necessity of Special Creation

I explained the biology of that in my previous post (the longer one). There is only one way of becoming pregnant, and it does involve an ovum. This is what you have to explain. This was the "sign" that Isaiah was speaking of. So how did this conception come about, "seeing that Mary knew not a man," as she told the angel. How do you account for these things, when not even Mary could account for them, and she was the one that was giving birth!!

 

Because Christ didn't come in a spaceship (which he could have). He was born of a virgin, as prophesied and foretold in the OT.

 

Your statement here is ludicrous.
Natural biology was not used? If natural biology was not used then Christ was not born? Who is Christ, SFIC?

 

One can be born of a virgin without the use of the virgin's egg.

 

natural biology would consist of a sperm and an egg...so no...natural biology was NOT used.

 

And how was that possible in the first century?

 

...the way the Bible describes

 

Natural biology also included a baby coming through a birth canal.

 

The Bible describes that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit. Conception involves an ovum, particularly in the first century.

 

Bingo! It doesn't need the original sperm or egg to do that either. Scientists can take one person's egg and another person's sperm and put both into a totally different person. I believe the Holy Spirit did just this.

 

That is naive. It is a total denial of the Word of God, and the words that are specifically used such as "conception." You cannot deny the use and meaning of these words and insert your opinion instead.

 

DHK, just because you keep wanting to cram "conception" down our throats doesn't mean that is what the text is implying. As I already pointed out it ALSO means "with child", which could imply any number of scenarios.

Fact is this side of Heaven we cannot know with 100% certainty if Mary's egg was used or if it wasn't. You believe it was, and I tend to believe it wasn't. I believe the Holy Spirit could implant Jesus Christ inside Mary's womb without having to conform to our biology...He is God after all.

 

Then instead of saying:
I believe...
IMO... and etc.

Offer Biblical evidence for your "opinion." If you have nothing put opinion you have nothing but a vain man's imagination--the definition of opinion.

 

I did just that with your Hebrew of "conception"........ "WITH CHILD".

You do realize that whey you point fingers, three point back at you, right?

 

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.

Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

You have demonstrated nothing. The two phrases are not equal. You still have not accounted for the phrase "for that which is conceived in her." What was conceived in her"? What? Please tell me what was conceived in her?

 

Vs. 22-23 was a reflection BACK on 20...and was repeating the fact that literally conceived means "begotten", which by definition (of beget) means to be the father of, or more literally "bring into being". This has no implication on the womans seed whatsoever.

 

You repeating the same thing that SFIC did. It is ridiculous.
Christ was born (conceived as you say). And then he was born again nine months later. He was actually born twice. That is a real trick now isn't it?