GreenEyedLady said:
I understand what you are trying to get across, and I love that you are so sweet on here and not quick to jump at anyone. Sorry if it seemed like I jumped at you on my last post, I had just a little time to post so I did it quickly. My apoligies.
Hi GreenEyedLady,
First, I never felt you jumped on me, so no apology is needed.
But if you felt you did, your apology is accepted, even though not needed . . (does that makes sense?)
The issues are not together for me at all because if Mary had any kind of speacial "holyiness" i guess I should call it, it would have been given from God anyway which points it all back to God's power, not Mary's flesh.
Think about it, where did Adam get his humanity from? From God! What it ties together is Mary was a creation of God, and Jesus always was and always will be Alpha Omega, the beginning and the end. Jesus was never created He always the beginning.
Don't you think that saying Mary had anything to do with his flesh is giving part of the creation of Christ's flesh to her instead of God?
For me, no more than you could say I had a part in the creation of my children . . Thier life comes from God, but their flesh, their DNA, comes from me and my husband . . the physical part of who they are . .
But we are all creations of God . . that doesn't mean that we were created without a human element being a necessary part of that creation. The only one who was created without a human being from which the physical was obtained was Adam . .
So for me, to say Jesus received his flesh from Mary says nothing more about Mary than it would about me being a mother since all we are speaking about is the physical element. . . it just says that instead of an earthly father, Jesus had a Divine Father . but an earthly mother . .
From what I can gather by your posts, you are talking about the science of the birth of Jesus correct?
I am not sure I would say that, because we don't know the "science" behnd the virginal conception of Jesus . . we believe it by faith . .
If I had to described the "science" of How I understand what happened I would do it this way - there was an ovum that was fertilized without an earthly father . .and that ovum came from Mary, and so carried her DNA which was transmitted on to Jesus to give him his earthly body, his humanity as it naturally comes from earthly parents. That does not take away from the act of the Holy Spirit to join God to man in the person of Jesus. Mary could not do that . .she is not divine, she is not God .
There is a verse that I have been thinking about, not to knock you or anything, just one that would fit, I think to this post and most likely many many more.
2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
God does not give us all the answers, that is where our faith becomes strong.
GEL
PS. It would not seem illogical to me if Christ was manifested just like Adam was without any need for DNA.
If this is true, how could he be one of us then?
See, part of why I think this is important is that if there is not a clear and direct relationship of Jesus to Adam and Eve as their descendant, then cults like gnosticism can more easily flourish, for if Jesus didn't receive his humanity from one of Adam and Eve's descendents, then he was never really a part of our human race.
Gnostics teach that Jesus came through Mary, and go so far as to even deny he had a real physical body . . I am not at all suggesting that you are doing that.
It was becauase of gnostics and other heretical sects that began to present themselves in the Early Church that they stressed the physical relationship of Jesus to Mary so strongly.
This is why such a question is not foolish or unlearned IMHO .. but necessary to understand better.
My purpose though is not to debate here but to better understand the position of people here . .
This might be a very good subject to discuss more freely in GT, but I simply wanted to better understand the Baptist position, so it didn't make sense to open a thread in GT to do so . .
Peace in Him!