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

Yes, the spaceship theory.
God created himself a body. He shot himself through space. He targeted the womb of Mary. He made a perfect landing. No conception was needed contrary to Scripture, and sometime later Christ was born.

 

No, I do not deny Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:20. Why do you keep falsely accusing me, DHK?

It appears it is you who is trusting in science. Science (biology) tells us a child cannot be born without two factors, the male sperm cell and the female egg. Without one of those factors, there is no birth.

Yet, God's Word tells us God sent His Son. The power of the Most High overshadowed Mary and she conceived. Where is the science there? It is not there at all. Science means knowledge. Mary knew not how this would take place. Science was not involved in the least.

God did it all. I believe Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:20 completely, without a shadow of a doubt. The work was all God. No male sperm cell, no female egg. Just God sending forth His Son as the Word of God proclaims.

 

I don't. Here is your statement:

Conception means that an egg was fertilized. You deny that it was. That is a denial of the above two verses. You say you believe them, and then you deny the truth that they teach! There is no false accusation here.

 

Surrogacy means a prefertilized egg was placed in a woman other than the woman who donated the egg and she conceived.

One does not have to provide an egg in order for that one to conceive.

In the case of Mary, God provided it all. Either He provided a fertilized egg and placed it in the womb of Mary, or He provided a flesh body and placed it in her womb. I believe it was the latter.


Either way, Mary's egg was not used. Else Christ would have been carrying the stain of mankind through Mary's DNA.

 

There's that spaceship theory again.
God made a body, zoomed it through space, and plunked right into Mary's womb sometime before Christ was born. That's a fancy story, but it is not what the Bible teaches. God doesn't ship embryos through space, not that he couldn't; but he didn't. We go by what the Bible says, not unsubstantiated fairytales.

 

There you go lying about what I think or say again. Nowhere have I said any idiotic statements about Christ coming in a spaceship. Quit lying about me. It is unChrist-like.

 

Since I haven't seen anyone say this, you must be making stuff up again.
Making up stuff, claiming others said it is lying.

 

Twice in one night I see.

 

I guess lying about my character and my words is his way of edifying.

Somehow I find it hard to believe.

 

Let me get this straight, God fertilized Mary's egg, and created a body for Jesus, and then Jesus indwelt the prepared body?

 

DHK, I've asked you a couple of times to provide a link to some well known theologians who believe the samething you do.

 

I don't see why this is so controversial?

Jesus was born of a virgin and the seed was planted in Mary's womb by the Holy Spirit.

If not Jesus wasn't divinely conceived He would have been born with the sin nature.

Jesus was perfect and without a perfect and unblemished sacrifice for sin, Jesus couldn't have died for our sins.

Jesus was divinely conceived and of a virgin by the Holy Spirit. There was no other way for that to happen unless there was a divine conception.

 

I did not lie; make anything up, or twist any one's words. If you want to quote me go ahead.
1. What I call "the spaceship theory" is strictly my terminology. Some people refer to a certain theory in creation as "the gap theory." Would they take offence if that is what they believe in, and now it has a name? There is a new doctrine on this board, going directly contrary to what the historic orthodox Christian view of the doctrine of the virgin birth is. I happen to call this new doctrine "the spaceship theory." I coined it. I like it. And I am going to continue to use it. It slanders no one.

What does the spaceship theory teach?
It teaches, contrary to Isaiah 7:14 and Mat.1:20, that Christ was not conceived but implanted; that somehow God sent to Mary's womb an already-made-to-grow-in-the-womb embryo, (or even fetus) from Heaven. Mary had no part of course. She didn't even contribute one cell of her body.

It's a wild theory that has wild and even heretical implications all the way to a straight denial of the doctrine of the virgin birth to an acceptance of abortion for life at conception is no longer sacred. These are the conclusions one comes to with such beliefs.

 

Ann quoted John Gill. Most protestants believe the same way.

 

Did I say that you said Christ came in a spaceship.
I said that is the theory that you believe.
That is the name of the theory that I have given for what you believe, so don't get all hot and bothered about it. In fact expect to hear it a lot more.

Your teaching is that God prepared something (body, embryo, fetus, etc.) and then sent it down to Mary, implanted it into her womb, and from there Christ's humanity began to grow. That is what you said you believe.
Just because I take your information, and label it as "spaceship theory," doesn't change the content of what you believe. Hopefully, by the label, it will get not only you, but many of the readers to see how outlandish and unscriptural your "spaceship theory" is.

The Bible teaches that Mary conceived and bore a son.
Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that there was an egg fertilized somewhere in outerspace. Where do you get that kind Scriptural evidence? It just isn't there. There is no misrepresentation of the facts. You can't back up what you are trying to teach. It sounds like a child's fantasy bed time story.

 

DHK,

A spaceship was not used in the miraculous conception of my Lord. Quit saying I believe such a nonsensical theory. It is an out and out lie.

If you cannot talk about me in a godly manner, please do not talk about me at all.

 

"spaceship" is my word; the word, I used, not you.
Having said that, your theory does not make sense at all, not in comparison with what the Word of God.

Please explain Isaiah 7:14 and Mat.1:20
Explain how a woman can conceive without her egg being fertilized? Please avoid using "surrogacy" for there was no such thing at that time. Mary said: "How shall this be seeing I know not a man"? She wasn't talking of surrogacy and the angel didn't answer her in that context either. The angel didn't lie or deceive Mary. He said nothing of surrogacy. Is God the Great Deceiver? No! He spoke in words that Mary would understand, and told her plainly that she would conceive!

 

In Matthew 1:20, the angel was talking to Joseph, not Mary. In Luke 1:31, the angel was talking to Mary.
Here is the definition of conceive in the context the angel spoke to Mary. A totally different word than the word 'conceived' in Matthew 1:20:

from 4862 and 2983; to clasp, i.e. seize (arrest, capture); specially, to conceive (literally or figuratively); by implication, to aid:--catch, conceive, help, take.

Mary would clasp or sieze that Son that the Word of God declares would be born of her. Nowhere in this verse is her egg used. Nor in the two you gave.

Why is it so hard to believe that God placed His Son in Mary's womb in a body prepared for Him as the Scripture states?

The Word became flesh. What is so hard to understand about that?

God placed the Son in the womb just as Scripture declares.

 

Please, for the sake of us all and to settle this debate, provide us all with the chapter and verse that will prove to us biblically without a shadow of a doubt that damnable sin is passed down by genetics. Flesh is passed down, death is passed down, but damnable sin is another thing altogether. To reiterate, Rom 3.23 doesn't say that sinful nature or flesh is what brings about death, but that sin does. And if you succeed in this be sure you copyright whatever you write because you'll be the first and only person ever to defend Augustine's theory totally and biblically.

Until one can prove biblically that damnable sin is passed down genetically, the simplest way of understanding the virgin birth and the incarnation is that Jesus' humanity was just like our humanity, of an egg and a sperm. Now if you could prove to me that damnable sin is genetic, then I might agree. If not, then there is no reason whatsoever to agree.

On the other side, if Jesus' humanity is different from ours, specially created and implanted in Mary like you keep claiming, then Jesus' humanity is not like ours. If his humanity is not like ours then his sacrifice, example, and sharing in our suffering are nothing but shams.


EDIT~~And where does the Bible say that "God placed the Son in the womb." Please site the specific chapter and verse because I have never read that in my entire life.