Jesus has no DNA from Mary

[prodromos]

We're discussing a point that is critically important here.

Perhaps for you. Can you give an example to support your claim?

 

[RDKirk]

Perhaps for you. Can you give an example to support your claim?

The point is whether God must speak according to "reality" or whether reality is what God speaks.

 

[prodromos]

The point is whether God must speak according to "reality" or whether reality is what God speaks.

God does not contradict Himself. If God calls someone "man" then the person is what God had previously called "man".
He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

 

[All4Christ]

Was anyone saying at the same time that Jesus shared Mary's DNA?

When, exactly, did people start teaching that Jesus shared Mary's DNA?

Or, specifically, that Mary's ovum was inseminated by the Holy Spirit?

See, these are details people have started to teach as though fact that are extremely recent inventions based on extremely recent understandings of human reproduction...but they're not what scripture actually says happened, and they're not what the early church fathers actually taught.

How is this related to what I said?

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus is not man because of DNA this and DNA that.

Jesus is man because God said so...and we stop with that.

Jesus was like us in EVERY way, except that he didn't sin.
He was like us because he was fully human; he was human because a human egg was fertilised. Had it been fertilised by male sperm, Jesus would have been ONLY human. but it wasn't. The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary; what was conceived in her was of the Holy Spirit, Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:20.
But he was still conceived IN MARY. He wasn't placed there, fully formed. When the time was right, Mary gave birth to a baby who grew, was a boy child and became a man.

There is nothing in Scripture to suggest otherwise. No account of Jesus being created uniquely, like Adam, no mention of male DNA being created to make him LOOK human - he WAS human.

 

[DamianWarS]

If God says they are "actually chickens" then they are actually chickens.

We're discussing a point that is critically important here.

God does not speak according to reality. Reality is according to what God speaks.

The reason "God does not lie" is because whatever God says, reality obeys to remain in accordance to what God has said.

a better way of putting it is God doesn't deceive, he has his own plan but he doesn't operate out of deception. If Christ is born as a new human race outside of Adam he is not Adamic and his death seems rather arbitrary to save the Adamic race. Why bother even coming down if he cannot be Adamic? He should just wave his hand as it would accomplish the same thing which is grace accomplished from the outside given to the inside. Adamic blood needs to be split to sanctify the Adamic race or at least in order for it to be relevant to the Adamic race and this is the point of the incarnation. Paul calls Christ the last Adam and you may say he didn't have the capacity to understand DNA but the biblical authors all seem to come from a starting point that Christ is human and that human is Adamic.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Was anyone saying at the same time that Jesus shared Mary's DNA?

When, exactly, did people start teaching that Jesus shared Mary's DNA?

Or, specifically, that Mary's ovum was inseminated by the Holy Spirit?

See, these are details people have started to teach as though fact that are extremely recent inventions based on extremely recent understandings of human reproduction...but they're not what scripture actually says happened, and they're not what the early church fathers actually taught.

The idea that Jesus shared His mother's DNA would have come about around the time that we discovered DNA existed. The point in arguing that Jesus shares His mother's DNA isn't about "genetics", but about insisting on the historic, orthodox understanding that the Logos became human, God the Word united Himself with us in our humanity--taking on our human nature--through Mary, His mother. Because the Incarnation is about God becoming human, becoming our flesh and blood, becoming our kin. Jesus is a human being, part of the human family of persons.

Obviously none of this suggests that the Holy Spirit "inseminated" anything. Mary conceived her Son without insemination.

But Jesus is her Son, and Mary is Jesus' mother. Our Lord Jesus is one of us, a human being, sharing in our humanity, in our mortality, in our weakness. Like us in all ways but without sin. God became one of us in order to heal, rescue, and redeem us, to save us, to restore what was lost and make us whole.

To quote St. Gregory Nazianzen, "Whatever is not assumed is not healed." Gregory wrote this against the Apollinarians who denied that Jesus had a human soul, Gregory's point is simple: If Christ is not fully human, then Christ does not save and heal our full humanity.

I would argue, if Christ does not properly share in our humanity, then our humanity is lost, that means we are not saved and have no hope of salvation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[All4Christ]

The context in scripture stated that He was born of Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit. A literal reading does not imply that she was a surrogate mother. It says that it was a miracle. It shows that there was a reason for Jesus being born of a human - the incarnation - union of man and God - 100% divine, 100% human. Of course, Jesus could be man and God without receiving humanity through a woman, but it wouldn’t cover the entirety of the salvation message if that was the case.

 

[His student]

John 6:53 The Philippian jailer would have been taught a great deal more after his conversion.

You are making the same mistake the Jews and Christ's disciples were making. The Lord would correct you as well - and has, if you would but listen.

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." John 6:63

There is a basic principle in the scriptures that Jesus told us about. I see it confirmed often here in the forum - usually when talking about soteriology.

The ones who will not humble themselves and throw their hopes for eternity on the finished work of Christ alone - will fall into a ditch sooner or later. In many cases they will simply never be saved - even though they may live an exemplary life supposedly enabled by their "cooperation" with God.

It seems to me that the most "liturgical" are often the ones who do not understand or pervert the basic concept of salvation by grace as shown particularly with the thief on the cross and the jailer we are speaking of.

Obviously I don't know you or your belief system. So I am not making any of these observations concerning you.

But regarding this idea of gaining further knowledge:

No doubt there is always knowledge to be gained after receiving the Holy Spirit to lead us into truth - just as the jailer and I and every person with the Spirit of God have been taught.

But he was saved upon believing, passed from death to life-never again to come into condemnation, sealed by the Holy Spirit, gained an eternal advocate before God for eternity, and was raised up and seated with Christ in the heavenlies.

We all study and learn from the scriptures as well from the world and learn lessons and insights from the history of the church. The Holy Spirit, who is given to us upon our justified position before God, is our teacher and leader in the often long and difficult sanctification process. But our salvation in the most basic sense is not dependent in any way on what we learn along the way.

Surely you aren't espousing some form of "Christian gnosticism" necessary to gain basic salvation, are you?

 

[chilehed]

Otherwise, we would have to conclude that Romans 3:23 is a lie.

Romans 3:23 is not a lie.

And Mary never sinned.

Both are true.

And Christ was born of Mary. His flesh was taken from her flesh. Nothing in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition indicates otherwise.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The mention of the phrase the 'last Adam' does not support your claim, please read in the context.

Yes, read the context - The last Adam became a life giving spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45
So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

If you were to read this as the Last Adam is not of a comparable estate as the first Adam in His humanity, this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh.

The Christ was not a living soul but a life generating Spirit. There is an astronomical difference between these two identities.

And you are incorrect here also; in that Christ was / did have a "living soul". The breath of life makes carbon based life forms "living souls".

"He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." Acts 2:31

Jesus's soul couldn't be "left in hell" if He didn't have one.

Theophanies?

Entities from the spiritual realm (the Word and angels) appear in physical form in the natural world. How do they do that?

One theoretical possibility is what's called "quantum teleportation". This is along the concept of a "transporter" from Star Trek. It's basically taking a pattern of on object and re-assembling it someplace else by assembling the molecules into that pattern. We can currently do this using light to send data to satellites. (I have no idea how it works; but it can be done.)

So what if a spirit entity (via either being God - or being directed by God) can take on a molecular pattern to appear in solid form in the material world? That would be using this theory of "quantum teleportation".

The ability to do that though, is not the same thing as entering the world as a carbon based life form. The Son entered this creation as a carbon based life form, through the vehicle of Mary his mother. This is what it meant for Jesus to be "fully man". The human body of Jesus could not appear and disappear at will. Carbon based life is anchored to a physical presence in the material world on account of the nature of what it is created to be. This is why deceased saints can not "take up their flesh again" to be able to appear as a physical entity in the material world. Yet apparently God can; and so can angels of a certain type.

So, is this what a theophany is; seeing how we know Jesus was not incarnated until He was incarnated. The Son (second person of the Trinity) would not appear in material form before the Father and the Spirit; prior to there being a material creation. That would be pointless.

That would be like Christ's incarnation only serving as an example of a sinless life. That too would be pointless. Yes, we "take for granted" that God is certainly capable of obeying His own law; but God doesn't need to prove that to Himself. So therefore Jesus came to serve a specific purpose other than just (as some say) to show us how to live.

So likewise; the concept of the Son with a material existence before creation commenced is also pointless.

So... how do we know a theophany is different than being incarnated? Well, one clue is that no-one had seen a theophany of the Son, since the incarnation. We have no "Jesus sightings" once Christ returns to heaven post resurrection. Why is this? Because now He is fundamentally different than He was prior to being incarnated.

 

[klutedavid]

Jesus was like us in EVERY way, except that he didn't sin.
He was like us because he was fully human; he was human because a human egg was fertilised. Had it been fertilised by male sperm, Jesus would have been ONLY human. but it wasn't. The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary; what was conceived in her was of the Holy Spirit, Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:20.
But he was still conceived IN MARY. He wasn't placed there, fully formed. When the time was right, Mary gave birth to a baby who grew, was a boy child and became a man.

There is nothing in Scripture to suggest otherwise. No account of Jesus being created uniquely, like Adam, no mention of male DNA being created to make him LOOK human - he WAS human.

Hebrews 7:1-3
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.

No father, no mother, void of ancestry, Jesus never had a start or an end to His life.

 

[All4Christ]

It surprises me to see the opinions of Christ Incarnate not having a biological mother or not being human. Before I became Orthodox, as Pentecostals (AoG) we believed in the incarnation and that Mary was blessed to be the mother of Jesus - biologically His mother (when He became incarnate). The same goes for my family in the Church of the Brethren and in a conservative Presbyterian church. I didn’t realize there were so many that denied even this basic concept - that Christ was born of Mary - that His humanity came from her and that she conceived Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy in 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.

Jesus is her seed - her offspring. That is what Scripture says.

 

[Strong in Him]

Hebrews 7:1-3
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.

No father, no mother, void of ancestry, Jesus never had a start or an end to His life.

Jesus, the child, clearly did have a start to his human life. That was his Ministry; to become flesh in order to die for us.
The eternal Word; God the Son, was with God in the beginning.

 

[Selene03]

Your problem is that you have inherited the Roman Catholic doctrine of original sin, and while the Catholics came up with the so called "Immaculate conception" to get around the problem, you have made an even worse error in trying to get around it. For the ancient Church it was never an issue because there wasn't the erroneous doctrine of original sin. The Orthodox Church understands that the flesh God took from Mary was instantly healed from the moment He united His divinity to her ovum. It is a critical point of our salvation that Christ took our flesh to the grave and raised it to life eternal, because if it was only an identical copy then our flesh has not been saved from death, only the copy that was Christ's.
Not our flesh = no salvation.

Mary's flesh was not healed the moment He united His divinity to her ovum. She was already "full of grace" before that. She was greeted by Gabriel as "full of grace" because she was without any sin including the Original Sin. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus identified Mary as a second Eve, as one who undid Eve’s work in bringing humanity into sin. Origen, one of the earliest Church Fathers called her “immaculate of the immaculate.” The belief that Mary was conceived without Original sin was mentioned by the Early Church Fathers since the second century because they understood her to be the New Eve (the bold is mine):

Justin Martyr
[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, "Be it done unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus
Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, "Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word." Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen
This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus
He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Athanasius
The Word, then, visited that earth in which He was yet always present; and saw all these evils. He takes a body of our Nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life (On the Incarnation of the Word 8 [A.D. 319]).

Ephraim the Syrian
You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Ambrose of Milan
Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianzen
He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [A.D. 390]).

Augustine
We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Theodotus of Ancrya
A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Proclus of Constantinople
As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

Jacob of Sarug
[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary [ante A.D. 521].

Romanos the Melodist
Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).

The belief that Mary was conceived without original sin, has been widely held since the second century, but the doctrine was not dogmatically defined in the Catholic Church until 1854 when Pope Pius IX, declared it in ex cathedra.

 

[All4Christ]

Mary's flesh was not healed the moment He united His divinity to her ovum. She was already "full of grace" before that. She was greeted by Gabriel as "full of grace" because she was without any sin including the Original Sin Justin Martyr and Irenaeus identified Mary as a second Eve, as one who undid Eve’s work in bringing humanity into sin. Origen, one of the earliest Church Fathers called her “immaculate of the immaculate.” The belief that Mary was conceived without sin was mentioned by the Early Church Fathers since the second century because they understood her to be the New Eve (the bold is mine):


Justin Martyr
[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, "Be it done unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus
Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, "Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word." Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).


Origen
This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).


Hippolytus
He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).


Athanasius
The Word, then, visited that earth in which He was yet always present; and saw all these evils. He takes a body of our Nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life (On the Incarnation of the Word 8 [A.D. 319]).


Ephraim the Syrian
You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).


Ambrose of Milan
Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).


Gregory Nazianzen
He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [A.D. 390]).


Augustine
We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).


Theodotus of Ancrya
A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Proclus of Constantinople
As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).


Jacob of Sarug
[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary [ante A.D. 521].

Romanos the Melodist
Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).

The belief that Mary was conceived without original sin, has been widely held since the second century, but the doctrine was not dogmatically defined in the Catholic Church until 1854 when Pope Pius IX, declared it in ex cathedra.

Not true. Original sin wasn’t defined as understood in the Roman Catholic Church and other western churches until many many years later that the early church. This was strongly influenced by St Augustine. You will find some western saints that are closer to St Augustine, but not across the church as a whole. You will find that Prodromos and other Orthodox believe that the Theotokos, Mary, is the new Eve, that she was holy and full of grace and so forth. We just don’t agree with your understanding of original sin, don’t see the need for the immaculate conception, believe it is problematic from the perspective of the incarnation, and definitely don’t agree with late development of dogma.

 

[klutedavid]

Yes, read the context - The last Adam became a life giving spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45
So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

If you were to read this as the Last Adam is not of a comparable estate as the first Adam in His humanity, this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh.

The first Adam was not Spirit, the first Adam was flesh and blood. The first Adam was a created carbon based life form, Adam was not begotten. Adam had the breath of life breathed into him from the life giving Spirit, i.e., the Word (Jesus).

Jesus like Melchizedek had no genealogy, without a carbon based father and mother, because Jesus existed before Bethlehem.

Jesus came from above, Jesus did not originate from or in Mary. Jesus assumed the shell of a carbon based life form, yet Jesus was always the way, the truth, and the life.

And you are incorrect here also; in that Christ was / did have a "living soul". The breath of life makes carbon based life forms "living souls".

Adam was created as a living soul, created in the first instance as flesh and blood, not immortal. Adam was a carbon based life form in a covenant of obedience, breaching this obedience would result in death.

Jesus the messiah was not a created living soul, Jesus was immortal, Jesus was the Spirit. Jesus appeared in this human form, Jesus was not the human form itself. Jesus was not bound by any covenant of obedience, Jesus cannot die.

Mankind and the demonic world must be permitted the power to execute Jesus, because Jesus is above and over these lower realms.

"He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." Acts 2:31

The life giving Spirit appeared in the form of a living soul. The life giving Spirit was not a living soul.

Jesus's soul couldn't be "left in hell" if He didn't have one.

The light of life was never defined as a living soul, the light of life became a living soul for a specific purpose. Jesus is always the resurrection and the LIFE.

Theophanies?
The ability to do that though, is not the same thing as entering the world as a carbon based life form. The Son entered this creation as a carbon based life form, through the vehicle of Mary his mother. This is what it meant for Jesus to be "fully man". The human body of Jesus could not appear and disappear at will.

Though Jesus could walk on water which is a problem for any carbon based life form.

Carbon based life is anchored to a physical presence in the material world on account of the nature of what it is created to be.

Jesus was in that human shell but Jesus was not the human shell. Jesus came from above to visit the sons of Adam, Jesus was not from Adam.

So, is this what a theophany is; seeing how we know Jesus was not incarnated until He was incarnated.

When God visited Abraham that was Jesus appearing in human form. Jesus has often in the Old Testament taken on the form of carbon based life forms.

The Son (second person of the Trinity) would not appear in material form before the Father and the Spirit; prior to there being a material creation. That would be pointless.

Jesus has always been with us, from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus spoke to Adam, Abraham, Moses, Issac and Jacob.

Christ is above the natural world and is not restrained by the Greek concept of natural law.

Jesus can and did use any life form that He chose to use for a reason. To say that God did not take on any human form in the Old Testament is erroneous.

So likewise; the concept of the Son with a material existence before creation commenced is also pointless.

The Word does not become the Son until Bethlehem. The Word walked in the garden of Eden, the Spirit does not walk.

So... how do we know a theophany is different than being incarnated? Well, one clue is that no-one had seen a theophany of the Son, since the incarnation. We have no "Jesus sightings" once Christ returns to heaven post resurrection. Why is this?

Your confusing one assumed identity (the Son), with the eternal identity, the Word.

People in the Old Testament saw Jesus in human form, but Jesus never told them His name. Even with Moses, Jesus never really told Moses who He really was, just that He was who He was, the eternal one. That is why Moses refused to look at the burning bush because He knew who was standing there. Moses was standing on Holy ground.

Because now He is fundamentally different than He was prior to being incarnated.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Jesus never changes, the Word is always the Word.

 

[JackRT]

At a very early date the Christian church developed the theory / dogma of Original Sin based largely on the mythology of the creation as found in Genesis. Not realizing any better, they accepted the story as literal history. We all know, or should know, that the theory of Original Sin is based on the notion that we are a fallen race, unworthy of God because of the sin of our primeval parents Adam and Eve. St Augustine further developed the theory by stating that the stain of the Original Sin was passed on to the children through the seed of the father.

This concept further confirmed the notion in the early church that sex was inherently evil and to be discouraged except for procreation. What is interesting as well is that Genesis is a Jewish scripture and the Jews never developed the theory of Original Sin. Moreover, the rather earthy Jewish attitude toward sex lacks entirely the Christian distaste for it.

The notion that Original Sin was passed on through the father's seed, somewhat like a spiritual HIV virus, turns out to have been inherently flawed. We must realize, that at that point in history, it was believed that the father, and the father only, contributed what we would today call the genetic make up of the child. What they called the male seed was regarded as containing an entire nascent human being. As a consequence, they regarded any wastage of the seed as tantamount to murder. This explains why masturbation, coitus interuptus and even homosexual acts were considered to be serious sins. The role of the woman was solely that of providing the warm nurturing environment for the developing child. She had no genetic contribution to make. Since she contributed nothing to the make up of the child, she could, of course, not be the agency through which Original Sin was passed on. Of course the mother herself was cursed with Original Sin but this flaw in her was not felt to have any bearing on the state of the child.

Now when we link these notions to the Nativity story we get further complications. Mary was believed to have become pregnant through the agency of God. God of course contributed the seed (genetic material) and Mary's role for the next nine months was as a nurturing womb. Jesus was born sinless because of course God was sinless. The stain of the Original Sin did not afflict him. It did not matter that Mary was afflicted with the sin.

This entire theory fell apart about several cemturies ago when it was discovered by microscopic studies that the mother did indeed contribute genetically to the child. She of course supplied the egg cell to be fertilized by the male sperm.

This realization seems to have provided a good deal of the impetus for the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. If Mary through her egg contributed to the genetic make up of Jesus then she too could pass on Original Sin. The Immaculate Conception solved this problem quite neatly by stating that Mary herself must have been concieved immaculately (without sin) through the agency of the grace of Jesus somehow applied retroactively.

If this has been pointed out earlier in this thread, I apologize because I have not had the opportunity to read the entire thread.

 

[klutedavid]

Jesus, the child, clearly did have a start to his human life. That was his Ministry; to become flesh in order to die for us.
The eternal Word; God the Son, was with God in the beginning.

Jesus created Mary.

The Word existed before Mary and Abraham.

The Word created the heavens and the earth.

The name Jesus is the name given to the Word when in the form of human flesh.

The Word before Bethlehem and after Bethlehem is God.

 

[klutedavid]

It surprises me to see the opinions of Christ Incarnate not having a biological mother or not being human. Before I became Orthodox, as Pentecostals (AoG) we believed in the incarnation and that Mary was blessed to be the mother of Jesus - biologically His mother (when He became incarnate). The same goes for my family in the Church of the Brethren and in a conservative Presbyterian church. I didn’t realize there were so many that denied even this basic concept - that Christ was born of Mary - that His humanity came from her and that she conceived Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy in 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.

Jesus is her seed - her offspring. That is what Scripture says.

The Word is not related to Mary, the Word came from above, the Word was God.

Mary was created by the Word and for the Word.

Mary was flesh and blood, a Jew, a descendant of King David. Mary was under the curse of death, Mary inherited death from her father Adam. Mary died as Adam died but the Word did not die, death has no power over the Word.
The Word was the first to rise and we will rise because we believe in the Word.

The Word is eternal, the giver of life, the Word chose the name of Jesus for a purpose.

The Word is eternal and was God.