Was Mary a surrogate or did she contribute her seed to Jesus??

I have not twisted scripture, so please do not accuse me of such.
In order for an egg to form a human body it must be fertilized with a human sperm. Where did that come from in your thought?
How do you explain Jesus and the lack of the sin nature He would have inherited from Mary if she contributed dna?
I believe in the miraculous, that God is able to create from nothing.

 

I too believe in the miraculous - you can't look around you and not. But I don't believe that Mary was nothing but a glorified oven, and Scripture does not back that up.

 

Michelle, how come you keep making snide remarks about Mary? She was called "blessed" by our Lord, and favored so much so, she carried our Savior.

 

Many people misunderstand this verse:

Genesis 3
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


Who are Thee and the Woman?

Who are thy Seed and Her Seed?

Did Mary fight the snakes?

Where did Mary fight the Satan?

Genesis 3
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.


Seed (Zerah ) appears more than 200 times but the most of them meant " child" or "descendant" only a few times could be interpretted as Sperm.

Are the children of Surrogate mother not her children?

 

Orb

2 Tim says- But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they gender strifes.

 

Immaculate Conception?

 

Mary was not sinless, so Immaculate Conception is a false doctrine.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by donnA
How do you explain Jesus and the lack of the sin nature He would have inherited from Mary if she contributed dna?

As one who is quite familiar with this doctrine, the insistence of people trying to apply it to this question (either to prove or disprove their point) is rather strange.

It has nothing at all to do with this discussion. It has nothing to do with the idea of preventing a 'sin nature' from being passed on to Jesus.

 

You’re preaching a RC doctrine…it’s understandable though…Protestantism is the egg (no pun intended) laid by the RCC…

Jesus inherited death, as we all do, that’s what God cursed Adam with and that’s what is inherited...death…We’re not guilty of Adam’s personal sin, Adam is responsible for his own sin and you and I are responsible for our own sin. Because of Adam’s sin and the fallen creation, we through our own free will choose to sin and break our relationship with God.

Jesus inherited death, and thus He died a physical death, just as you and I will. Jesus being fully human and fully divine, Jesus’ humanity, the same as our humanity and our tendency to rebel and sin, submitted to His divine will, therefore Jesus remained sinless.

All this crying about eggs is for the birds (no pun intended). God choose a young virgin for a reason…God could’ve sent His Son fully human and divine without the aid of Mary or any woman, but there’s a reason and Scripture was fulfilled, through a young Virgin named Mary.

The Early Church never had issues with eggs in regard to Christ’s Incarnation; b/c the Early Church had a firm grip on Original Sin. This never became an issue until Augustine’s theology concerning Original Sin and just as you are trying to downplay the Incarnation around your theology of the Original Sin, the RCC did the same in dogmatizing the Immaculate Conception.

You can’t fathom sin tainting Christ in the womb of Mary via her egg, b/c Mary passes on sin, so you claim God did it all outside of Mary’s womb and without any egg. The RCC can’t fathom sin tainting Christ so they develop the Immaculate Conception that Mary was free from Original sin, thus no sin was passed on to Christ.

The Orthodox Church says, from the beginning, that Man inherits death and is responsible for his own sin. Thus Mary a sinner passes only the inheritance of death on to Jesus as humanity, not sin. Though His humanity like ours, His submits to His divine nature and unlike us, remains sinless, while we eventually succumb and sin.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

Was the Blood shed at the Cross inherited from Mary?

 

Except for that the IC doctrine has nothing to do with concern about Mary passing on a 'sin nature' to Jesus.

How could it? You would then have the same issue with Mary, requiring an IC of her parents, and then with their parents....

But for some reason I think there's an echo in here...

Oh wait, it's me saying the same thing, and everybody ignoring me.

:BangHead:

 

We are not ignoring you, ma'am. we just know better than to accept doctrine that does not line up with the Word of God.

 

Silly me. I just think people should have an accurate understanding of the doctrine they reject. And to continue to insist that it has something to do with having to find a way to not pass a 'sin nature' on to Jesus and tie it to this discussion indicates that people do not have an accurate understanding of the doctrine.

Rejection of a doctrine that you do not have a correct understanding of is somewhat meaningless you know.

 

hoo boy...SFIC, you've crossed the line. Fully God, Fully man. Please don't deny that.

Hebrews 4:15--

You're way, way off on this one.

Back up slowly away from the heresy.

Jesus was no automaton. He could have sinned, but did not. If Jesus did not have the capacity to sin, then He couldn't have been tempted, which invalidates Heb. 4:15 (et al).

You are very, very wrong on this one. To say that Jesus was "not fully man" messes with the Incarnation...a fundamental of the faith.

 

Where do you get fully man out of that verse. If He did not have a sin nature, He could not have been fully man. All men are born with a sin nature.

 

Although Christ was tempted (tested), He could not sin. He did not have a sin nature.

 

maybe we're talking circles around each other, then.

It was never God's perfect design for man to have a "sin nature." That came about because of the fall. Because of our rebellion, we have a sin nature...something absent from Adam/Eve, pre-fall.

So, by the absence of a sin nature, it may be that Jesus was indeed MORE "fully man" than the rest of us. Does that make sense?

But I'm incredibly uncomfortable with the statement "Jesus was not fully man." That statement leads to many heresies. I know you don't deny the fulness of the Incarnation...but that statement causes problems IMO with the understanding of the Incarnation.

 

How can one be tempted, if one doesn't have the capacity to give in?

That makes no sense. And it negates the meaning of Heb. 4:15.