Was Mary a Biological Mother or a Surrogate Mother for Jesus?

The ovum is not concieved, it is produced by the body. So apparently something other then the ovum, in Mary, was concieved by the Holy Spirit. That would be Jesus. To say anything else is to change scripture.

 

In the previous thread on this subject, I stated that I had found an article by Dr Henry Morris, Ph.D. that stated that the incarnation happened not in Bethlehem of Judea, but in Nazareth when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she conceived.

Dr. Morris' statement strengthens that which I had said from the first post I did on this subject... that no ovum, nor any sperm cell was used to cause the Son of God to be in Mary's womb.

It was not a spaceship floating down to earth that did this miraculous thing. It was not anything short of God reproducing Himself in Mary's Womb... without the use of her ovum.

I will sit back and watch the thread, and if the Lord prompts me to add anything else, or if I find further articles by any theologians who have been shown this wonderful truth, I will post them for all to read.

 

So Jesus didn't have a family resemblence with Mary? If God did not utilize Mary's egg (and thus her DNA), then how was Jesus in any real way human? And if God did not utilize any of Mary's DNA, then did Jesus even resemble the people of Israel with whom he lived?

It appears to me that the simplest explanation (and the one the preserves Jesus' full humanity) is that Mary's egg was utilized when Jesus was conceived through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

 

cowboymatt,

For excellent reading material on this subject and understanding why Mary's egg could not have been used, I suggest this article Creation and the Virgin Birth

To save my having to rehash it all over again, I would suggest you go and read the now closed thread "Necessity of Special Creation."

But in short, had Mary's ovum been used, Christ would have carried the stain of sin passed down to mankind by the disobedience in the Garden of Eden.

 

I agree. This is further supported by the Apostle Paul stating that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:2) and was also the promised Seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16).

 

Christ was of the offspring of David in that one of David's descendants gave birth to Him.

He was one of the offspring of Abraham in that one of Abraham's descendants gave birth to Him.

But He was not of their seed as in sperm cell, DNA or biological makeup.

He was the second man, the second Adam, the Lord from Heaven in a body, not an egg, not a sperm cell, but a body of flesh that God had prepared Him.

 

Ummm...okay...so much for the real humanity of Christ and our redemption.

 

Your premise relies fully upon the notion that "the stain of sin" is passed on biologically. Not everyone thinks this is the case; actually fewer and fewer scholars argue for the biological passing down of sin.

Besides that, if Jesus doesn't share our humanity with us then Jesus can't be our example because he was not like us.

 

Christ was in a human body. But it was not like our human body that is sinful. His was not sinful. His body was perfect.

 

Was Adam any less human than we are because he was created perfect and sinless? He also didn't have a mother or father. Does that make him less human?

 

Let me ask you this: If sin isn't passed down biologically, how is it passed down? David knew that he was a sinner, for Psalm 51:5 states:

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

How do we become sinners? Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Do we pick sin up from the air? Why did Christ have to be born of a virgin?

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Jesus Christ came in the "likeness of sinful flesh"...Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

That verse in Hebrews says that Jesus "took part" of the same (flesh and blood)...but was not a "partaker" of the same (flesh and blood).How did He do this if there was any human intervention (Mary's egg used) in the Incarnation and virgin birth of Christ?

There are too many unanswered questions if one disregards the biological passing down of sin.

 

Adam and Eve were created perfect before the fall. After the fall, the curse of sin was passed upon them and also upon all men.

 

In either case, she was the Mother of Jesus who is God who carried/bore him in a pregnancy, gave birth to him and raised him as her son. Therefore the title Theotokos is a right title for her.

The biblical authors and initial readers of the bible were not aware of the biological mechanisms of fertilisation involving sperm and ovum and are silent on the issue.

 

Really? So they were aware of the male seed (sperma), but were not aware of the female egg?

David explained that He was shapen in iniquity, that the child is formed in the womb.

I bet they knew much more than you are giving them credit for.

Oh, this thread is not addressing the false doctrine of Theotokos. Please keep in line with the OP and on topic.

 

Yes, exactly. I was just pointing out that Jesus was just as human as Adam, even tho He had no father or mother.

 

Adam was not made with a human egg, and yet he was human. God creates.
If Jesus had Mary's dna He also inherited her sin nature.

 

They knew that the semen (the seed) caused a woman to become pregnant just like an egg became a chicken when the rooster did something to it and a seed became a plant when placed in the ground.

Sperm and ovum are microscopic cells that were not known about or understood until the last hundred years.

The word sperm that we use now came from the word for seed, not the other way around.

 

Then when and how does man kind obtain the sin nature?

 

Where in the Bible does it say that the "sin nature" is encoded in the DNA?
And even if the "sin nature" is somehow conveyed by DNA, who's to say that God couldn't have just infused new DNA into one of Mary's ova? Or perhaps there was something involved in the miraculous virgin birth that prevented Jesus from getting a propensity to sin while otherwise inheriting his mother's biology so he could redeem our humanity with his (since he's one of us, yet without sin) and really be of the seed of David and of Abraham? I'm sure the class could come up with some more ideas...