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

[/quote]
Second you make a false accusation against me.
Third your information is inaccurate, and doesn't make sense. What did the angel say to Mary and how did Mary understand it. What did the angel say to Joseph and how did Joseph understand it? Did either one understand that God was going to make Mary a surrogate mother? No! That is not the case at all. Mary answered the angel: "How can this be seeing I know not a man?"
There is no surrogacy even thought of in the text. Why then do you read into the text that which is not there. Your argument is based on silence, not on the Bible. In order to have a Biblical argument you must start and end with the Bible. Why not try doing that.

 

DonnA did not take the Lord's name in vain. She was answering the question put forth:

Who had the technology...?

Her answer?

God!

I echo her answer.

 

I stand corrected and I have edited my post

 

In one respect, surrogacy may not be the correct term to be applied to the virgin birth.

Surrogacy entails the egg of one woman and the sperm cell of a man becoming one and being placed in the womb of a second woman.

Since neither a male sperm, nor a female egg could be used without Christ inheriting sinful flesh, surrogacy may be an inaccurate word.

But it is clear, the child in her womb was put there miraculously without her egg or a man's sperm cell.

 

This is false information which you are posting; information which has been unheard of until just recently. It has always been a widely accepted belief that the sin nature is inherited through "the seed" of the man. In fact the Bible teaches that. The female egg has nothing to do with that. Don't read into Scripture things that are not there. If you are going to make a statement back it up with Scripture. Where in Scripture does it say that through the egg, the sin nature will be passed on? Scripture please!

No it is not clear. That statement borders on heresy because it denies the virgin birth. How does it deny the virgin birth of Christ? It doesn't deny that Mary is a virgin; no one is saying that. It denies the plain teaching of Isaiah 7:14, and the purose of Christ being born of a virgin. That is what is meant by denying the virgin birth (the doctrine of the virgin birth). The doctrine of the birth, of a necessity, involves Mary giving birth to a Son after conceiving Him nine months earlier by the Holy Ghost. Conception involves the fertilization of an egg. Mary was still a sinner. Christ was still born sinless. It could only be in this way that Christ was born with a complete humanity. He is totally man and totally God at the same time.

 

Do you think Christ's flesh was sinful?

 

1 Peter 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

HP: Good question. I would like to know where it states that the sperm of man was not used in the creation of the ‘flesh’ of Jesus. We know full well and agree that Joseph did not know Mary until after the birth of Christ, but who is to tell us that they have solid evidence that the Holy Spirit did not simply fertilize the egg of Mary with the sperm of Joseph or sperm created with the DNA of Joseph as the lineages testify to? DHK certainly produced no such evidence in spite of his throwing the ‘h’ word falsely at me.

 

the natural flesh is sinful, annsni. Scripture declares Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh. If our flesh was not sinful, the Word of God would not have said it. Man, who is born of a woman, is unclean.

Christ, could not have come from Mary's egg, else through her chromosomes in her egg, He would have been born in sinful flesh as all mankind was. Nor could He have come from Joseph's sperm cell for the same reason.

But instead, He was born in the likeness of sinful flesh. Not in sinful flesh. His flesh was different than yours or mine.

 

Jesus' body was not corruptible, annsni.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

I was born again because of that incorruptible seed... the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Had Mary's egg been used, the seed would have been tainted, it would have been no longer the spotless and sinless sacrifice needed to satisfy the debt of sin mankind owed.

 

HP: The flesh, the physical, is not nor can it be ‘sinful’ in Adam, you and I or Christ. Your question suggesats that you are making the cardinal Augustinian error in wrongfully placing sin in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will.

 

God's Word declares it to be sinful. God's Word declares that it is unclean.

 

To say that the sperm of a man was used would be a heretical view wouldn't it? Especially in view of the Scipture that says: "a virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son." To be born of a virgin excludes any possiblity of a sperm being used. He was born of a virgin. He wasn't born of a virgin's egg and a man's sperm. He was born of a virgin that he might escape the sin nature of Adam.

Some liberals denying the deity of Christ say that Roman soldiers committed adultery with Mary. Do you suggest the same thing?
The Jews in John 8 accuse Christ and say "we be not one born of fornication," implying that Christ was. Is this your view?

Is it such a hard thing to take Scripture literally for what it says: "a virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son." That has only one meaning.

Matthew 1:20 fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
--Is this so hard to believe. It has only one meaning.

Why is there such a concerted effort to make the Bible say something it doesn't say??

 

God declared all flesh to be clean. He said that to Peter, as I quoted to you before. Is the flesh of a pig of more value to God than the flesh of man. Why is the flesh of swine declared clean, and you think that the flesh of man is not clean?

 

God did not declare all flesh clean, DHK, you are misreading the text.

The vision Peter had was showing that God had called him to preach to the Gentiles that they might hear the Word and be saved.

If all flesh is clean, then the resurrection of the fleshly bodies of wicked dead just to toss them into the lake of fire makes no sense at all.

 

HP: No, it would not. No intercourse was involved by man period, so Mary indeed was a virgin just as Scripture states.

What necessarily does sperm have to do with intercourse? I suppose if one cannot make sperm it is impossible in your mind to have intercourse? I suppose that if the Holy Spirit choose to use the sperm of man to impregnate Mary, the Holy Spirit was committing fornication in your mind?

I believe we could use some farmers on this list.:laugh:

 

No more than to say Mary provided an egg in light of the fact that Scripture says nothing of Mary's egg either.

 

The bodies are not wicked and are not declared to be, not even the body of Stalin or Hitler. Flesh is amoral. It is simply a collection of cells made out of chemicals. How can chemicals have any moral value.

The people clothed with a glorified body will stand before God. This is true for believers at the JSOC, as well as for unbelievers at the Great White Throne Judgment. The people, not the bodies are judged. Cells are not sinful.