ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Was Jesus A Ferilized Embryo

Does Hebrews 10.5 "... a body you prepared for me" mean that Mary's ovum was not used, and that Jesus was inserted into her womb as an already fertilized embryo?

Join Our Christian Friendship and Take The Who Is Jesus Bible Quiz
 ---alan8566_of_uk on 2/24/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (6)

Post a New Blog



\\The fetus grows its own umbilical cord, containing its own blood vessels: two arteries and a single vein....
---kathr4453 on 3/23/11\\

\\Cluny there are two cords.
---kathr4453 on 3/23/11\\

Make up your mind.

Is it ONE umbilical cord or TWO umbilical cords?
---Cluny on 3/23/11


Kathr4453-- You seemed to understand the facts perfectly. Now where did you get, TWO Cords?
---Donna66 on 3/23/11


Cluny, I believe mima was repeating something I may have said. Regardless, it's a life support system necessary for the sustaining of life, nutrition etc.
---kathr4453 on 3/23/11


one cord containing two arteries and one vein.
---micha9344 on 3/23/11


kathr, are you saying there are TWO umbilical cords now? If so, why did you say at first there was only ONE?

Are you saying that they are grown by the mother or unborn child?

Make up your mind.
---Cluny on 3/23/11




Cluny there are two cords.
---kathr4453 on 3/23/11


\\The fetus grows its own umbilical cord, containing its own blood vessels: two arteries and a single vein.\\

kathr, it was MIMA, not I, who said that the unborn Christ Child was attached to Mary's umbilical cord.
---Cluny on 3/23/11


mima, ya know, Mormons believe Michael teh Arch-angel entered Mary's womb, becomming flesh, and then after resurrection that Jesus shed his flesh and returned as Michael the Arch-angel.

Well, angels have no blood and never did, cannot reproduce with humans, as no reproductive organs...that would make their jesus not even a man really.

The RCC's mythology is just as odd!
---kathr4453 on 3/23/11


Cluny your statement,
"mima, you are in no position to recognize clear lines of demarcation between anything spiritual, as you do not have right faith concerning the origin of the human nature of Jesus."
---Cluny on 3/22/11
indicates to me that you do not agree with my views.
---mima on 3/23/11


The fetus grows its own umbilical cord, containing its own blood vessels: two arteries and a single vein. As these vessels grow they form intertwining spirals, embedded in a simple jelly with a thin outer covering, so that the mature cord resembles a soft, twisted rope. The fetal heart pumps its own blood via the umbilical arteries to the placenta, where their finest branches lie bathed in the mother's blood, they are drained by the tributaries of the umbilical vein which takes it back in the cord to the fetus, to flow back to the heart. Thus used blood is pumped through arteries and refreshed blood is returned to the heart by veins.


Without this FACT no fetus could ever live, grow, etc.
---kathr4453 on 3/23/11




Yes---kathr4453 I'm aware of what the RCC denies.
A little story. At a mixed dinner a Catholic priest came up to me and threw his arms around me and loudly announced me as a man of God. I was totally taken aback. Later I met him at his request and after much discussion about the RCC(he was very very knowledgeable about their heresies) I plainly ask him did he want to pray for his salvation. No he said not at this time. Six months later he got saved he resigned from the church and is now an elementary school teacher. The RCC's indoctrination is as damaging as Islam's ever dared be.
---mima on 3/23/11


14Forasmuch 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,

15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

17Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.


mima, you are aware too that the RCC also denies ALL these truths.
---kathr4453 on 3/23/11

Please explain!
---Ruben on 3/23/11


\\You deny the embryo was attached to Mary, forming an embilicord cord giving life blood to Jesus? Your one line hit and runs are hard to place what you are saying.\\

Tell me when I denied that Jesus as an unborn child was attached to Mary.

What mima was confused about is that the mother grows the umblical (note the spelling) cord. She doesn't.

And the baby (Divine or otherwise) has its own blood supply, and takes NONE from the mother.

If you don't understand earthly things, kathr, what is the point in discussing heavenly things, such as the Eucharist?
---Cluny on 3/23/11


14Forasmuch 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,

15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

17Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.


mima, you are aware too that the RCC also denies ALL these truths.
---kathr4453 on 3/23/11


Cluny, why point fingers at Peter? Let's point at YOU.

Do you believe you are eating DIVINE Flesh? And by eating divine flesh you are partaking of His Divine nature? Is that the flesh of Jesus before or after His Crucificition? Which would be Glorified flesh...correct?

Does it glow in your mouth? Or is is the flesh that took the sin of all man? Are you eating everyone's sin? Or Glorified Flesh, literally?

You deny the embryo was attached to Mary, forming an embilicord cord giving life blood to Jesus? Your one line hit and runs are hard to place what you are saying.

And you also deny HE ALONE is our High Priest, HE ALONE we confess our sin to.

Your Jesus simply is not the Jesus of Scripture.
---kathr4453 on 3/23/11


\\Jesus was attached to Mary's ambilical cord.\\

That would be quite a feat, since the unborn baby grows the umbilical cord and placenta, not the mother.

mima, how do you account for Galatians 4:4

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Or do you simply deny this in your false Christology?

This is clearly saying that Jesus took His human body from the Virgin Mary.

You can believe what you want to, mima. You will anyway.

I'll believe the Word of God.
---Cluny on 3/22/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


"I do believe Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15)." (Jasheradan)

How can you believe that if you also believe that the Virgin Mary did not bore the Word of God incarnated? That only his human nature was inside Mary, and only his human nature did she gave birth to? In other words, how you reconciled your recent statement with your former Neo-Nestorianism article of belief?

Can you please explain what you believe?

"The Fathers and the Holy Ecumenical Synods? I only read scripture."

Then why do you not believe Mary is the Theotokos (i..e, God-Bearer, the Mother of My Lord [God]) as Scriptures teach (Luke 1:43)?

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 3/23/11


\\Cluny, I wasn't aware God asked Peter to have a baby??? Maybe that's why Peter was disagreeable.\\

kathr, please read Matthew 16:21-22. There are parallel passages in Mark and Luke.

There you will see that Peter was NOT going along with God's program, unlike the Virgin Mary.

**---kathr4453 yes it is definitely meant as a hug. And is offered in clear recognition you're being able to make a clear line of demarcation between someone's opinion and the Word of God.
---mima on 3/22/11**

mima, you are in no position to recognize clear lines of demarcation between anything spiritual, as you do not have right faith concerning the origin of the human nature of Jesus.
---Cluny on 3/22/11


And showing her willingness to go along with God's plan, unlike Peter who disagreed with Jesus about going to Jerusalem.
---Cluny on 3/22/11

Cluny, I wasn't aware God asked Peter to have a baby??? Maybe that's why Peter was disagreeable.
---kathr44553 on 3/22/11


This topic is of no value to the Christian life. The question we should be asking is am I following JESUS?
---Samuel on 3/22/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


---kathr4453 yes it is definitely meant as a hug. And is offered in clear recognition you're being able to make a clear line of demarcation between someone's opinion and the Word of God.
---mima on 3/22/11


mima, I'm not really sure what you are saying here. Am I getting hugged or mugged?
---kathr4453 on 3/22/11


Does everyone remember Sarah. God promised both Abraham and Sarah a son. Neither had power to conceive, being past age. However they believed God and His Promise. Sarah being past age, and Abraham considering his body dead, it was GOD's POWER alone according to His WORD, His Promise. Now if it was Mary's WORD...that would be WOF doctrine, that we, can create out of words things, being little Gods. Mary was not a God that created the world by the WORD OF MARY. Mary was not the WORD made flesh.

mima, I believe it was a hug. Just a little shell shocked lately.

Isn't it important to look at and seriously consider EVERY WORD OF GOD...even the they, us, them, we, His, ours etc. EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
---kathr4453 on 3/22/11


\\I dont recall the angel asking her if she would have Gods Son for him.
---Jasheradan on 3/22/11\\

Unlike Sarah or Zachariah, she didn't question the message of the angel, or laugh at them.

**Mary's words had no power, Mary is acknowledging God's Power, according to HIS WORD!
---kathr4453 on 3/22/11**

And showing her willingness to go along with God's plan, unlike Peter who disagreed with Jesus about going to Jerusalem.
---Cluny on 3/22/11


Send a Free St Patrick's Day Ecard


---kathr4453 I believe you've missed your calling the following statements are of course irrefutable!

"38And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy word..

Mary did not say "according to MY word". nor did the Angel say, "this will be done to you according to YOUR word".
---mima on 3/22/11


38And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy word..

Mary did not say "according to MY word". nor did the Angel say, "this will be done to you according to YOUR word".

Let's compare here:

Psalm 119:169
Let my cry come near before thee, O LORD: give me understanding according to thy word. God Promised understanding.


No doubt Mary knew of the promise of the Messiah promised in Isaiah. She is only acknowledging that she will be that vessel already chosen. Mary's words had no power, Mary is acknowledging God's Power, according to HIS WORD!
---kathr4453 on 3/22/11


All men are "cooperative" in their own salvation by placing faith in Jesus Christ. Do we get the glory for that? Nope - it all goes to God. It is HIS plan and HIS power. We are simply the recipients of it.

Should Judas be honored because he betrayed Christ? It led to Christs death, burial and resurrection which is the means by which all of us are saved.

"All creation, including the angels, held their breaths, wondering what her answer would be.
"

I dont recall the angel asking her if she would have Gods Son for him.
---Jasheradan on 3/22/11


\\It wasnt her power or will that brought Christ (the Son) into the world , it was God's.
\\

Wrong.

All creation, including the angels, held their breaths, wondering what her answer would be.

And she said, "Behold, the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to thy word."

In God's providence, her cooperation was necessary.

Try again.
---Cluny on 3/22/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


Sorry, Ignatius. Thats not what I said.

I do believe Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). I also believe that God is the Savior of Mary as well as us(Luke 1:47). She was also a sinner in need of salvation. She was a vessel chosen by God. It wasnt her power or will that brought Christ (the Son) into the world , it was God's.

The Fathers and the Holy Ecumenical Synods? I only read scripture.
---Jasheradan on 3/22/11


\\Please dont make her a deity.
---Jasheradan on 3/21/11\\

Nobody is, Jasheradan.

But Luke 1:43 says that Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, called the Virgin Mary, "Mother of the Lord," in effect, calling her "Mother of YHVH," for Who else is the Lord but God?

Or is Luke 1:43 not in your Bible?
---Cluny on 3/22/11


"She didnt give birth to the Word of God. She was the vessel He used to come in the flesh.
---Jasheradan on 3/21/11"

In other words, you do not believe Jesus Christ is God-Incarnated (as Scriptures, the Fathers, the Holy Ecumenical Synods, etc teach).

---Ignatius on 3/21/11

Ignatus, How does Jasheradans comment deny God was made flesh? He's simply saying the WORD who is God, and was and always will be, was not created by Mary. Mary did not impart any divine nature to Jesus.
---kathr4453 on 3/22/11


"She didnt give birth to the Word of God. She was the vessel He used to come in the flesh.
---Jasheradan on 3/21/11"

In other words, you do not believe Jesus Christ is God-Incarnated (as Scriptures, the Fathers, the Holy Ecumenical Synods, etc teach).

Your doctrine is nothing more that Neo-Nestorianism, and it was condemned by the Church more than 1,500 years ago. It was wrong back then, and it is still wrong now!

And FWIW, Saint Elizabeth, inspired of the Holy Spirit, called Mary the Theotokos, the Mother of my Lord (God)-->Luke 1:43.

Believe what you want, but I will believe the word of God.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 3/21/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


Mary is not the mother of our Lord God. She is the mother of the son of God. She didnt give birth to the Word of God. She was the vessel He used to come in the flesh. Please dont make her a deity.
---Jasheradan on 3/21/11


Biology tells us that the egg, or embryo contributes 1/2 and the seed 1/2 making up the whole of the fetus.

If the egg/embryo was not Mary's, but was implanted from another doner, the doner's dna would be that 1/2 contributing factor. If God supplies both egg and seed, then Biologically Jesus was not human or man. Placing an already fertalized egg in Mary's womb, would not necessarily make mary the mother, but just a momentary oven.
mima, read up on egg doners, etc. Also the importance of the egg.

Question, if someone of Japanese background donated an egg, and japanese man donated teh seed, and implanted into an african woman, would the baby be Japanese? African? Or half Japanese and African?
---kathr4453 on 3/21/11


To answer the original question:

No, it does not.

The body was prepared from the Virgin Theotokos. Otherwise, she would not be the Mother of our Lord God, as Luke 1 says, nor would Jesus be descended from Adam according to His human nature, as other scriptures say.

The Bible is quite clear that Jesus took His human nature from His Virgin Mother.

Galatians 4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
---Cluny on 3/21/11


Part 2:

The exact obstetrical and biological details need not concern us.
---Cluny on 3/21/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


Yes, teh Holy Spirit overshaddowed Mary, and Mary's egg was fertalized with God's seed. This is how God was made flesh.

Jesus had Mary's eyes, skin type, etc.

If I misunderstood you mima, my apologies. It seems I have heard you state in the past, that it was not Mary's egg, because them Jesus would have Mary's sin nature, that God just used her womb, not her egg.
---kathr4453 on 3/21/11


---kathr4453 your statement,
"The word was MADE FLESH." Is one of the keys to understanding this teaching. The word always existed, John 1:1,"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So when the Word was made flesh there was no egg and therefore no fertilization of the egg necessary. Jesus was attached to Mary's ambilical cord. Jesus was fully human how you ask? Well I answer by asking was Adam fully human.
And in Hebrews 10:5 we are told were Jesus got his body.
"but a body hast thou prepared me:" who did the preparing the Father. Jesus was always fully God and he has had a human body since Mary conceived what the father had prepared and placed in her womb.
---mima on 3/21/11


mima, who supplied the egg? So you say an egg and seed were implanted. The seed must connect with the egg to be furtalized if I'm not mistaken. The word was MADE FLESH. Was there any other forms of flesh before man other than animals? 1st Cor 15? anti-christers deny Christ came or was made flesh.

Was Jesus born a Jew? Were or are there Jewish eggs floating around in heaven?

Was Jesus attached to Mary's ambilical cord? Did she stop having periods?

If God supplies both egg and seed, would Jesus be man...human?

Why wasn't Jesus just formed out of the dust of the earth like Adam was? or heavenly dust particles?

Can you show through scripture the Egg was not Mary's?
---kathr4453 on 3/20/11


If in fact ist Peter says, Jesus suffered in the flesh, and we are to arm ourselves likewise...how can I arm myself likewise, if Jesus flesh was not human flesh. I wouold be expected to do the impossible. I could no more identify with that than I could with an angel.

Could Jesus actually identify with us as well? So this idea Jesus was not human opens more issues than you realize.

There is one mediator between God and man and it is the MAN Christ Jesus. Are there any other definitions of MAN in scripture?

Why did scripture carefully carry Mary's genelogy all the way back to ADAM? What was that point?
---kathr4453 on 3/20/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


Christ for our sake became obedient unto death, even death on a Cross.

And He Himself said He gave up His physical life willingly.

If someone is so deluded as to call this "suicide"--or even thinks he heard that said--nothing much can be done about it.
---Cluny on 3/2/11


Rob, while I am not a "Word of Faith" person I too have never heard of this teaching about Christ committing suicide.
---mima on 3/2/11


Rob-- I never heard THAT teaching when I was hanging out with the Word of Faith folks.
You must have heard that from a cult of some kind.
---Donna66 on 3/1/11


larry-- WOW. all the sinful tendencies people inherit come from their mothers?! Wasn't Adam a sinner,too? (Maybe I wasn't reading you right)

1Cr 15:22 For as in ADAM all die,(no mention of Eve) even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Maybe human physiology worked differently in Jesus day, but we now know that genetically, no human can survive without certain contributions from the female parent. A male cannot even be a male without an X chromosome from his mother.

Don't you think God could have chosen the specific genes Mary would contribute to the baby Jesus? Or are all genes of a female too "unholy" for God to use.
---Donna66 on 3/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


The FALSE TEACHERS of the Word Of Faith Movement teach CHRIST DID NOT DIE ON THE CROSS because CHRIST COMMITTED SUICIDE!!!
---Rob on 2/28/11


Cluny,
Correct, He laid down His life willingly.

I probably misworded what I said. I meant that being in Adam, His body was cursed to die just like every other man. And proof of that curse is in the fact that He did die.

But, I believe (opinion) that Jesus died at an age when His body was fully matured. But no older, since aging is death in progress.

But, as Craig asked, IF Jesus had not died on the cross, He would have died of old age.

That's why God is charge of the timing. Jesus kept saying "My time has not come yet".

It was appointed at a certain time for Him to die, innocent. As a man, not a boy. But not an aging man, for then His body would have known decay
---James_L on 2/28/11


I never really thought about that, but if Jesus hadnt been crucified would he have lived forever since he knew no sin?
---CraigA on 2/27/11


\\I got reamed for suggesting that Christ fell victim to the curse of Adam (Physical death) as all other men have.\\

But don't forget: Jesus said, "No one takes My life. I give it."

Christ died voluntarily, not as the result of a curse.
---Cluny on 2/27/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


Cluny,
You are absolutely correct.

1Cor 15:22 says "In Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall live"

If Christ were not "in Adam", then Adam could not be "in Christ"

I got reamed for suggesting that Christ fell victim to the curse of Adam (Physical death) as all other men have.

But that's what scripture teaches. Jesus descended PHYSICALLY from Adam. And in Adam, all die. Even Jesus. The only difference is that Jesus did not yield to the temptation of sin as we all have (Heb 4:15).

To say that Jesus was not "in Adam" would mean that He is not a man.

That leaves one embracing heresy
---James_L on 2/27/11


\\If you can ignore what the Bible teaches about Mary \\

YOU are the one ignoring what the Bible says about Mary, not I.
---Cluny on 2/27/11


For those of you who deny that Jesus took His flesh and human nature from the Virgin Mary, here's what the infallible Word of God says:

Galatians 4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

What part of "made of a woman" do you not understand?
---Cluny on 2/27/11


Jesus was born of a woman. Yes, God used Mary's ovum, so that Jesus could be both fully human as well as fully divine. In the sayings of one of the Apostolic Fathers, "Jesus borrowed flesh from Mary so that He could suffer death."
---ZedEx on 2/27/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


The exact obstetrical and physiological details of the Incarnation don't really interest me because they are mere speculation, and at times, immodest.

It is sufficient for me that the Logos took His human nature from the Virgin, as the Bible says in Luke 1: "Behold, you shall conceive."

This includes the flesh of His human body--same as we all take it from our parents, except He had only ONE human parent.

And we should all remember that it was the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph that taught the boy Yeshua His first Bible verses and prayers. Thus they clearly had an important role in His spiritual formation.

Think about i! Mere humans taught God Incarnate about the Bible.
---Cluny on 2/27/11


"In other words, what you think about Mary will affect what you think about Christ." Cluny this statement is clear enough for me. If you can ignore what the Bible teaches about Mary and by your own words elevate her to this position of equality with Jesus I can only say, I am very sorry and I promised to pray for your deliverance.
---mima on 2/27/11


This is kind of a "you've got to be kidding question", but Mary was used as a conduit for humanity with no genetic input otherwise her sin would have been passed on to the baby as everything born of a woman has a sinful nature. Everything created perfect (Adam, Angels, Christ) has only a father, thee FATHER and no mother. They are the creation of a single parent who lacks nothing.
Jesus was born by a woman not of a woman.
Mary was in the delivery business and God took care of the content. Praise his Holy name.
---larry on 2/27/11


This is the humanity of Jesus, The christ, son of David. Who knowing that God had sworn with an oath unto him [David] that of the 'fruit of his 'loin' (as literally plucked from his procreative power) 'according to the flesh' (as pertaining to His body), He would raise up 'Christ' (The Anointed One) to sit [physically] on his throne.
The body of Jesus was 'conceived' (to be delivered through procreation) by the 'overshadowing' (as the investing of a superimposed preternatural influence) of the Holy Spirit, and 'made' (assembled) using the 'seed' (reproductive cell) of David combined with the 'ovum' (reproductive cell) of Mary. Acts 2:30>Mat 1:20>Rom 1:3 'Emphasized words defined using the originally copyrighted Strong's Concordance.'
---joseph on 2/26/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


\\"Bruce apparently the reason Jesus came as a man was so he could experience coming through the birth canal"\\

Not all humans come through the birth canal, mima.

Ever hear of Julius Caesar? Or MacDuff from the Scottish play?
---Cluny on 2/26/11


Mima,
What does a person know of having "come through the birth canal"? In what way would that make him any more "human"? The birth process does not shape us into the people we are.

If, by means of implant ion, a woman bore a chimp to term and gave birth to it. Would it then be human? Of course not.

Again, if all that was necessary was for him to be like a man, he could have been discovered in a basket as Moses was. Mary could have taken him as her son and raised him.

As much as I do not agree with Cluny on some things, he is right on in this matter. It strikes at the heart of the humanity of Jesus. "Like" the seed of Eve is not the same as being of the very seed of Eve as promised.
---Bruce5656 on 2/26/11


Mima "Bruce apparently the reason Jesus came as a man was so he could experience coming through the birth canal"

Apprently? Your source for this?

Presumably you Mima can identify with other men because you shared the esperience of the birth canal Bet you can't remember that!

Why do ignore the Bible. Mary conceived. Jesus is descended from Adam.

You hate the RCC (which perhaps gives her too high a status) so much that you would deny Mary's true motherhood
---alan8566_of_uk on 2/26/11


St. Simeon prophesied to the Virgin Mary in Luke 2, "Yes, a sword will pierce your own soul also that the thoughts of many will be revealed."

In other words, what you think about Mary will affect what you think about Christ.

We see now what happens when people do their best to remove Mary's ministry in the story of the Incarnation, and hence our salvation.

They wind up denying the Bible itself.
---Cluny on 2/26/11


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


Bruce apparently the reason Jesus came as a man was so he could experience coming through the birth canal, so he could completely identify with us. He came in the flesh and was fully human. Adam came in the flesh and he was fully human. The Scripture says in Philippians 2:7,
"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"
---mima on 2/26/11


Mima,
Please answer this question.

If Jesus was not created from Mary's ovum (the miracle being the creation of the male genetic material that was necessary to cause her to conceive) then why was the birth necessary at all? Why could he not have come as a theophony as he did in the OT?
---Bruce5656 on 2/25/11


\\Cluny Adam also was fully human where did Adam get his humanity? Adam received his humanity from God.\\

And the Geneology in Luke--corroborated partly by that in Matthew--says that Jesus is descended from ADAM.

The think you are imagining means that Jesus is NOT descended in His human nature from Adam, which goes against what the Bible (to which you constantly appeal) actually says.
---Cluny on 2/25/11


Mima,

Granted, Adam was the first human. When God appeared to Abram in the form of a man was He human? No, he was like - in the form - of a human.

If God had created two human couples and only one sinned. Would the other couple need redemption? Could one of the other (unrelated and sinless) couple be the redeemer for Adam's race?

We need redemption because we are descendant from Adam. It was necessary for a true descendant of Adam to redeem us.

If Jesus were a special creation, ("human" but not related to Adam by blood), he could not have been a true representative of Adam's race.
Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
---Bruce5656 on 2/25/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


Well, Jesus did come "in the flesh". 1 John 4:2 > "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God," So, Jesus did have a flesh and blood body. But Jesus was God's Son, before this earth was created and before human bodies were made first from the dust of this earth. So, I can see that Mary was the mother of Jesus, only after He was conceived in her. So, she was not His mother like our Father is His Parent starting before she was created. And Mark 3:31-35 shows Jesus saying that whoever obeys God is, as He said, "My brother and My sister and mother." So, others are His "mother", too (c:
---Bill_willa6989 on 2/25/11


i do not believe that you "moderator" put such a title to this post nor that you even posted this blog, you must be bored to even let some of these get past you !
---Lea on 2/25/11


Cluny Adam also was fully human where did Adam get his humanity? Adam received his humanity from God. You deny the power of God when you imply that he can not do this. He had already done it in Adam and later he did in Jesus. Remember Jesus was the second Adam. It is not my intention to make you crawl intellectually however on the other hand you should desire to be intellectually honest with your self and with our God!!
---mima on 2/25/11


\\Not quite Docetism, which taught that Jesus' physical body (and thereby crucifixion) was an illusion.\\

But this would apply to His conception, gestation, and physical birth were illusions as well.

However, the line between these ancient Christological heresies is often fluid.
---Cluny on 2/25/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


\\This, boys and girls, is called the heresy of Docetism.\\
---Cluny on 2/25/11


Not quite Docetism, which taught that Jesus' physical body (and thereby crucifixion) was an illusion. They believed that a Holy God could not incorporate with a material body, being that all matter was thought to be evil.

But, you are correct that it would be a heresy.

Jesus came to take on real human flesh, that He could overcome the flesh perfectly, and lay down His flesh as a ransom for our sins.

If His flesh were not the same as ours there wouldn't be anything to overcome, like temptation - fear, hunger, weariness, and even death. He did that, you know?
---James_L on 2/25/11


\\So, now I can see He was not conceived with her egg, but is purely the "Son of God", therefore not truly the Son of Mary.\\

First people here are denying the full Deity of Christ. Now they are even denying His full humanity!

I noticed that you conveniently omitted Luke 1:31--"Behold, YOU SHALL CONCEIVE IN YOUR WOMB."

If Jesus did NOT take His flesh and human nature from the Virgin Mary, then He is NOT truly descended from Adam according to the flesh, as the Bible says in several places.
---Cluny on 2/25/11


No. That is a tradition of men. In fact, such a doctrine is borderline Gnosticism, which taught Christ DID NOT come in the flesh, but was a phantom.

Holy Scriptures calls Mary "the Mother of Jesus" and in Luke 1:43, she is called the Theotokos (Saint Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit calls Mary the "the Mother of My Lord (God)"). In Luke 1:31, we are told Mary was to conceived a Son. Women's conception involves the fertilization of her egg (in the case of the Theotokos, her egg were fertilized miraculous without the need of men).

The Theotokos was NOT a "rent-a-womb" as Mima wrongly believed.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 2/24/11


If so, then the Virgin did NOT conceive after all, and Jesus only APPEARED to have gone through a human gestation and birth.

This, boys and girls, is called the heresy of Docetism.
---Cluny on 2/25/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


It doesn't say what it means.

But . . . we do have how the angel told Mary, "'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you, therefore also that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.'" (Luke 1:34) This is in answer to how she could have a child, "since I do not know a man," she said, in Luke 1:34.

So, now I can see He was not conceived with her egg, but is purely the "Son of God", therefore not truly the Son of Mary. Mary is not God, so she can not really be his mother, or she would be God.
---Bill_willa6989 on 2/25/11


It is beyond our ability to comprehend how God was manifest in the flesh. How the Holy spirit came upon her and she was over shadowed by the most high.
---JIM on 2/25/11


Hebrews 10:5 in the King James version reads "Wherefore when he(Jesus) cometh into the world, he(Jesus) saith, Sacrifice and offering thou(God the father) wouldest not, but a body hast thou(God the father) prepared me:

The embryo that became Jesus was not fertilized but rather was a special human embryo created to become the Lord Jesus Christ who was both fully human and fully God. Could Jesus possibly be human without using a human mother,s egg ? I ask you was Adam(who had no mother) a human?
Allan thank you for the wording of the Question.
---mima on 2/25/11


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.