DNA source

Just FYI, friend.

It was interesting to read, anyway. I learned something new.

Hope it didn't hurt(too much).lol

Rick Otto said:

Hope it didn't hurt(too much).lol

Click to expand...

Nah... serves as a nice warmup for my final year of undergrad studies.

It is impossible for Miriam to have contributed all of Yeshua's DNA. If that were true, He would have been her clone or identical twin. For one thing, she did not even have the Y chromosone to pass along.

That said, it means absolutely nothing compared to the beauty and sanctity and faithfulness of her willing cooperation with HaShem in bringing redemption to the world. She is blessed.

prodromos said:

It had to be OUR nature that Christ took to the grave and then raised back to life, otherwise Christ's death and resurrection would have saved not a single one of us from death. We all inherit our nature from Adam through our parents, and Christ inherited His from His mother.

Have you read "On the Incarnation" by St Athanasius?

Click to expand...

With ALL respect to the idea of the immaculate conception, I nevertheless see this as a very flawed line of argument. After all, where did HER nature come from? If one argues that it was the saving grace of HaShem which preserved Miriam from sin, then OBVIOUSLY G-d could have done the same with Yeshua. One way or the other, it is OBVIOUSLY not necessary to have a sinless mother in order to be sinless. Better arguments can be made than THIS one!

Also, it was a person that died, was buried, descended to the dead, and rose. Not a nature. But we digress from the topic...

Uphill Battle said:

Ok, Just was thinking.

It is said that it is poor Christology to think that Mary may have been merely a "vessel." and that Jesus derived his humanity from the DNA of Mary.

Now, I have always believe that. Never had much problem with it. I read something however, that causes me to question it.

Someone was expounding on the Old Adam vs. the New Adam. Adam (old) created by God, without any former source of DNA. The author then expounded that new Adam, would also have the "creation" of God, although God the Son was never created, that the physical form WAS created in Marys womb. (the author went on to state that this does not detract from the fully God fully Man truth, as the full divinity and full humanity would be in evidence in either case.)

Is it not possible that Jesus' incarnation was not genetically linked to Mary at all?

I cannot argue againt it, I can't know what God did on the Matter.

What scripture states is the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, and she conceived. It doesn't state the exact genetic method God chose to use.

I'd like to know

1) for those who state that Jesus for CERTAIN derived his DNA from Mary, how we know that with certainty?

and

2) why it is so important that he did?


I cannot argue for or against, I'm just interested.

(for the record, I do not deny the Motherhood of Mary for Jesus.)

Click to expand...

What I dont get is why the word "made" or "created" cannot be used in relation to Christ. He is the New man we put. The words "created" and "made" are used in relation to Him but often forbidden by others (for the most part) in doing so. I dont see the apostles having any problems using these words in relation to Him.

Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him

The Word was MADE flesh, the Son was MADE of a woman and He who learned obedience was MADE perfect, and such like things.

The apostles did not appear word phobic concerning these things as some appear today. Even as the above speaks of Him who was created.

So even though the words "begotten" (not made) appears in the creed (as to correct using the word "made") pertaining to him all three (begotten, made and created) are used regarding to Him.

Whats the scoop on that anyway? Anyone know? We know Adam is shown being "formed" (from the dust of the ground) and that word appears to be used in relation to Christ too, but it pertains to Christ "formed" in us (who are the dust of the ground)

You just made me think!
I never noticed that.
"Word-Phobic"?
You're improvisin' like Lois Armsrtrong whren he lost the lyric sheet!

I think maybe they're skeered of demotin' His divinity.
I thought you checked out for the evenin'.
I guess you only got as far as hangin' up yer hat.

Rick Otto said:

You're improvisin' like Lois Armsrtrong whren he lost the lyric sheet!

Click to expand...

Scatting?

If only he knew what "scat" means in Greek

Fireinfolding said:

What I dont get is why the word "made" or "created" cannot be used in relation to Christ. He is the New man we put. The words "created" and "made" are used in relation to Him but often forbidden by others (for the most part) in doing so. I dont see the apostles having any problems using these words in relation to Him.

Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him

The Word was MADE flesh, the Son was MADE of a woman and He who learned obedience was MADE perfect, and such like things.

The apostles did not appear word phobic concerning these things as some appear today. Even as the above speaks of Him who was created.

So even though the words "begotten" (not made) appears in the creed (as to correct using the word "made") pertaining to him all three (begotten, made and created) are used regarding to Him.

Whats the scoop on that anyway? Anyone know? We know Adam is shown being "formed" (from the dust of the ground) and that word appears to be used in relation to Christ too, but it pertains to Christ "formed" in us (who are the dust of the ground)

Click to expand...

I dunno, but the word Paul uses kinda means the result of a "creative act".

Christ, unbegotten, was "involved" in the creation of the cosmos -- so He was involved in the creation of His own flesh (man) too.

I sort of understand this as glorifying the plan and love of the creator, manifested in something we can "see", the pre-eternal unbegotten Son made visible to us out of the great love (and creativity) of God.

In the passage in John (1:14), John uses the word (eyeneto) born of a family or type ; this seems to me that John is saying that the pre-eternal Logos was born (at His earthly nativity/incarnation) of the family of flesh -- mankind. Anotherwords, He (God) that is unlike us (as God, spiritual) took on our flesh (became like us/family to our kind). Again it speaks of the great love of God, who is love (who "stoops" to bring us to Him).

(yenesis, -genesis in english - and similar words involve birth beginning and related meanings. The word translated as "make" in the passage of John would be a different 'class' of words in greek; I'm not sure in koine, but in modern greek "make" would be "kanw/o").

Hope you got a good nights sleep -- is your computer still in front of the bed ?

Thekla said:

I dunno, but the word Paul uses kinda means the result of a "creative act".

Christ, unbegotten, was "involved" in the creation of the cosmos -- so He was involved in the creation of His own flesh (man) too.

I sort of understand this as glorifying the plan and love of the creator, manifested in something we can "see", the pre-eternal unbegotten Son made visible to us out of the great love (and creativity) of God.

In the passage in John (1:14), John uses the word (eyeneto) born of a family or type ; this seems to me that John is saying that the pre-eternal Logos was born (at His earthly nativity/incarnation) of the family of flesh -- mankind. Anotherwords, He (God) that is unlike us (as God, spiritual) took on our flesh (became like us/family to our kind). Again it speaks of the great love of God, who is love (who "stoops" to bring us to Him).

(yenesis, -genesis in english - and similar words involve birth beginning and related meanings. The word translated as "make" in the passage of John would be a different 'class' of words in greek; I'm not sure in koine, but in modern greek "make" would be "kanw/o").

Hope you got a good nights sleep -- is your computer still in front of the bed ?

Click to expand...

I did, thanks sis... and I'm now able to SIT at my puter Cant cha tell? my posts get longer winded when I can sit, the Lord was given ya'll a break from my lengthy posts lol.


I'm right with you on the above Thelka and I can agree with all that as well. No problemos there at all. Just pointing out that words which are taboo to use which pertain to the Son of God are used in the epistles and such declarations are not always so cut and dry. I have watched some in certain conversations which used those words get ripped on and it left the hearer in doubt that the otherside had any idea of what they were talking about. Especially in regards to being offended over words, that (even I) was seeing used in scripture.

Paul didnt explain it as some I watch explain it in terms relating to the flesh. He appeared to speak in spiritual terms after the patern of redemption as it relates to the law. For example, the Son was "made of" a woman made under the law that he might redeem them from the law. This (in the one Woman) was pointing to ~the many~ as it pertained to the adoption of Sons (The Church). Jesus also comparing His own disciples (plural) as "a woman (singular) being delivered of a Child.

He did not concentrate his words around a fleshly understanding of His physical birth (pertaining to the flesh). He appeared to show a higher spiritual truth using the woman (one) and showing in her a similitude that finds its spiritual substance in ~the many~. Just as the prophetic sword would peirce her soul (singularly) is answered more equally so in that "the thoughts of many hearts" (in their plurality) would be revealed.

Now, I am glad it is written, others were seeing her after the flesh as it appears its pointing out that we can too. Often (as I see it alluded to) making her (after the flesh) more relevant then what we see (even Jesus) pointing to.

For example, it is was said of them that stood by "behold, thy mother and brethren stand without" and Jesus didnt not say, "well tell them to come in" (its not a fleshy story needing a fleshly response). Jesus was showing this very thing (not acknowledging them after the flesh) to show us the very same thing He was driving home in truth. Jesus asks, "who is my mother brethren and sister"? He stretched forth his hands to his disciples He declared them so. This follows the same paterns shown (in sword, who is my mother, the disciples being her and as a woman in John and Paul's similitude of a woman showing again it pertained to the many). It appears a very consistent in the patern. Now when observing conversations it always seems to be steered (or reverted) "backwards" as if is needed to protect a singular woman (in the flesh) both to revere and protect her "person" (known after the flesh, in her singularity) rather then after the Spirit (knowing no one after the flesh). It sometimes appears in holding fast to her singularity some have a harder time seeing the overall because the one obstructs the veiw (as the one pertains to the many) where the true substance is. Maybe that is where some of the clashing comes in, not sure. But I understand Jesus himself showing (in Spirit and in truth) these things pertaining to his disciples who do His will. Christ "in them" (specifically) after the Spirit not Christ in her (born of the flesh). Not at all in doubt that she (mother of our Lord Jesus) gave birth to Jesus Christ in the flesh. The greater would be Christ formed in us (We now being His flesh) and so joined unto the Lord are one with Him in Spirit. Just seeing one more of the shadow and the other the truer substance every disciple can relate to and find the reality of these things much more edifying and pertinent to us as it relates to ourselves and Christ through these things.

If only I explain what I mean better Just like the words "unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given". These too are of the same thought (at least they are to me) finding their relevance in the same. We are "delivered OF" the Child ( spiritual words..."no more children" but Sons). Delivered of a Child that a Son (Manchild) be brought forth into the world (Christ in us).

It speaks (again) of a child being no different from a servant (though he be lord of all). The child pertains to the tutor (till the apointed time of the Father) wherein we also see the same regarding Gods declartion "To day" I have begotten you". The child under the tutor contrasted against the Son who is led by the Spirit. Showing again it corresponds to those who being led by the Spirit are (in truth, as so manifested) are the Sons of God. Which agrees with the same elsewhere, if ye are led by the Spirit ye are not under the law. The same in the similitude (once again) born of a woman (made under the law, woman with child) to redeem them from the law unto the adoption of Sons (speaking after the same patern).

When Israel was A CHILD it was THEN I loved him and I called MY SON out of Egypt. They are used again and again in the paterns speaking of the same in all these. Elsewhere and in other similitudes as well, such as in Abraham which I see connected to the child dying an hundred years old the same exact age Abraham (old man) was when Isaac was born unto Him. The very same is shown in the power of God given to Sarah to ~conceive seed~ to be delivered OF Child (past age) among the few of many places where I can see it consistently speak to Christ. In Genesis where Abel dies and Seth is granted which I see reflected on the cross "Woman, behold THY SON" not just after the flesh but after consistent paterns laid out in similitudes speaking forward to the redemption plan of God in Christ.

Theres so many speaking the same thing over and over again relation to the Child (in the same) and the Son (in the same) pertaining to "the ages" He is the Rock of (even in these things).

Sorry, I'm not that good at explaining myself and everything looks like scrambled eggs Im sure of it lol.

Still learning to communicate better, got a ways to go

Peace

Fireinfolding

Rick Otto said:

You just made me think!
I never noticed that.
"Word-Phobic"?
You're improvisin' like Lois Armsrtrong whren he lost the lyric sheet!

I think maybe they're skeered of demotin' His divinity.
I thought you checked out for the evenin'.
I guess you only got as far as hangin' up yer hat.

Click to expand...

I'm word phobic to a point myself actually, I'll admit that. But more of after words used outside scripture not the ones used in scripture

Especially if I gotta look up every other word, that drives me nuts.

I did, thanks sis... and I'm now able to SIT at my puter Cant cha tell? my posts get longer winded when I can sit, the Lord was given ya'll a break from my lengthy posts lol.

Click to expand...

Congratulations

I'm right with you on the above Thelka and I can agree with all that as well. No problemos there at all. Just pointing out that words which are taboo to use which pertain to the Son of God are used in the epistles and such declarations are not always so cut and dry. I have watched some in certain conversations which used those words get ripped on and it left the hearer in doubt that the otherside had any idea of what they were talking about. Especially in regards to being offended over words, that (even I) was seeing used in scripture.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with LLoJ -- the translation makes a big difference.
I can't figure out why "became" in John 1:14 was translated "made";
the differences are there between the words in english and moreso in greek. I admit, I get distressed over the different understanding in the words -- only because for some they lead to a different Christ. Its all in His hands, of course ! But we have a responsibility too ... though I don't think getting angry will help much of anything

Paul didnt explain it as some I watch explain it in terms relating to the flesh. He appeared to speak in spiritual terms after the patern of redemption as it relates to the law. For example, the Son was "made of" a woman made under the law that he might redeem them from the law. This (in the one Woman) was pointing to ~the many~ as it pertained to the adoption of Sons (The Church). Jesus also comparing His own disciples (plural) as "a woman (singular) being delivered of a Child.

Click to expand...

Yeah, both Testaments have the "layers" revealed as we grow in Him !

He did not concentrate his words around a fleshly understanding of His physical birth (pertaining to the flesh). He appeared to show a higher spiritual truth using the woman (one) and showing in her a similitude that finds its spiritual substance in ~the many~. Just as the prophetic sword would peirce her soul (singularly) is answered more equally so in that "the thoughts of many hearts" (in their plurality) would be revealed.

Now, I am glad it is written, others were seeing her after the flesh as it appears its pointing out that we can too. Often (as I see it alluded to) making her (after the flesh) more relevant then what we see (even Jesus) pointing to.

Click to expand...

I think this is why the EO (well, in part) refer to Mary (Theotokos) so much -- she is in a sense the "typos", the "pattern" of our own (potential) spiritual "reality" in Christ.

For example, it is was said of them that stood by "behold, thy mother and brethren stand without" and Jesus didnt not say, "well tell them to come in" (its not a fleshy story needing a fleshly response). Jesus was showing this very thing (not acknowledging them after the flesh) to show us the very same thing He was driving home in truth. Jesus asks, "who is my mother brethren and sister"? He stretched forth his hands to his disciples He declared them so. This follows the same paterns shown (in sword, who is my mother, the disciples being her and as a woman in John and Paul's similitude of a woman showing again it pertained to the many). It appears a very consistent in the patern. Now when observing conversations it always seems to be steered (or reverted) "backwards" as if is needed to protect a singular woman (in the flesh) both to revere and protect her "person" (known after the flesh, in her singularity) rather then after the Spirit (knowing no one after the flesh). It sometimes appears in holding fast to her singularity some have a harder time seeing the overall because the one obstructs the veiw (as the one pertains to the many) where the true substance is. Maybe that is where some of the clashing comes in, not sure. But I understand Jesus himself showing (in Spirit and in truth) these things pertaining to his disciples who do His will. Christ "in them" (specifically) after the Spirit not Christ in her (born of the flesh). Not at all in doubt that she (mother of our Lord Jesus) gave birth to Jesus Christ in the flesh. The greater would be Christ formed in us (We now being His flesh) and so joined unto the Lord are one with Him in Spirit. Just seeing one more of the shadow and the other the truer substance every disciple can relate to and find the reality of these things much more edifying and pertinent to us as it relates to ourselves and Christ through these things.

Click to expand...

I do think you're right about the clashing -- the EO is careful to refer to Mary's spiritual "value" for us -- but also to celebrate that He "lifted to Himself " even the flesh (fallen) of mankind and at the end of time will lift all matter . So that she, created for Himself by Him and chosen for the purpose of His plan for the redemption of mankind and ultimately all matter ... well, pretty cool

If only I explain what I mean better Just like the words "unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given". These too are of the same thought (at least they are to me) finding their relevance in the same. We are "delivered OF" the Child ( spiritual words..."no more children" but Sons). Delivered of a Child that a Son (Manchild) be brought forth into the world (Christ in us).

It speaks (again) of a child being no different from a servant (though he be lord of all). The child pertains to the tutor (till the apointed time of the Father) wherein we also see the same regarding Gods declartion "To day" I have begotten you". The child under the tutor contrasted against the Son who is led by the Spirit. Showing again it corresponds to those who being led by the Spirit are (in truth, as so manifested) are the Sons of God. Which agrees with the same elsewhere, if ye are led by the Spirit ye are not under the law. The same in the similitude (once again) born of a woman (made under the law, woman with child) to redeem them from the law unto the adoption of Sons (speaking after the same patern).

Click to expand...

Again, see how first the Jews were called out of Egypt, then Joseph and Mary fled there with the infant Christ and came out of Egypt ... the early Christians (some, and we still do in the EO) refer to baptism as the coming out of Egypt, and the parting of the Red Sea ... In the Lord's prayer: on earth as it is in Heaven -- for what He wills by our cooperation is brought to earth. Eve "heard" the words of the serpent, "conceived" them and sin "was born". Mary, hearing the words of Him, "conceived" the Christ, and gave birth to Him who is our salvation ...

Some in the EO say that the virgin birth (which Satan knew would happen) was "hidden" in the marriage (Law) of Joseph and Mary.
The unbegotten Son of the Father was "hidden" in human flesh (which is under the Law), and not seeing this great wonder, thought (Satan) he accepted a mere human into Sheol, and thus the bonds of death were broken.

When Israel was A CHILD it was THEN I loved him and I called MY SON out of Egypt. They are used again and again in the paterns speaking of the same in all these. Elsewhere and in other similitudes as well, such as in Abraham which I see connected to the child dying an hundred years old the same exact age Abraham (old man) was when Isaac was born unto Him. The very same is shown in the power of God given to Sarah to ~conceive seed~ to be delivered OF Child (past age) among the few of many places where I can see it consistently speak to Christ. In Genesis where Abel dies and Seth is granted which I see reflected on the cross "Woman, behold THY SON" not just after the flesh but after consistent paterns laid out in similitudes speaking forward to the redemption plan of God in Christ.

Click to expand...

whoops ! on Egypt, see above ...

We are close to celebrating (in EO) the birth of the Theotokos (Mary), and seeing the types from the OT fulfilled in the NT, the hymns observe that He made for Himself a throne in the body of the virgin, that He may be enthroned in us (Sorry to mention -- that "gets me" every time

Theres so many speaking the same thing over and over again relation to the Child (in the same) and the Son (in the same) pertaining to "the ages" He is the Rock of (even in these things).

Sorry, I'm not that good at explaining myself and everything looks like scrambled eggs Im sure of it lol.

Still learning to communicate better, got a ways to go

Peace

Fireinfolding

Click to expand...

Your eggs or my eggs ?

I think yours look all yellow, mine aren't quite as well mixed ... I can't understand if I understood another or am understood by another without a face to look at as a "measure"

Thekla said:

Congratulations

Click to expand...

Thanks!!

I have to agree with LLoJ -- the translation makes a big difference.
I can't figure out why "became" in John 1:14 was translated "made";
the differences are there between the words in english and moreso in greek. I admit, I get distressed over the different understanding in the words -- only because for some they lead to a different Christ. Its all in His hands, of course ! But we have a responsibility too ... though I don't think getting angry will help much of anything

Click to expand...

I agree with Lamb too, to a point. Though I really dont believe small words lead to a different Christ. For instances I can agree with begotten as well as made as well as created after their similititudes after the spiritual rather then see it after the carnal and to me they change nothing.

Yes I heard that "made" is became" in John but what of the Son was "made of" a woman? Or the Son was "made" perfect? What are those words that I might be "politically correct" (or religiously correct) without being named a heretic I know how that goes lol

Yeah, both Testaments have the "layers" revealed as we grow in Him !

Click to expand...

I agree And the yet carnal cannot by nature of the man see or understand the Spiritual, that much is true and we are all carnal until our minds are renewed (having the Spirit) and taught by the Spirit to compare spiritual things with spiritual.

I always sorta see those layers being first "natural with natural" then "natural with spiritual" and finally spiritual with spiritual becoming more pure as the wisdom from above is. At last huh? lol

I think this is why the EO (well, in part) refer to Mary (Theotokos) so much -- she is in a sense the "typos", the "pattern" of our own (potential) spiritual "reality" in Christ.

Click to expand...

Then I agree here 100% it can sometimes be "the words" that throw others off. They hear a foreign term that might not be found in the scripture (I do it too). The word (as well as the definition for a word) is not found in itself in scripture and then it becomes speaking a different language. One will get one up in arms because in ones understanding (from that level) it would appear to be adding somewhat to what does not appear plain. But rather then seeing another as having somewhat of an integrity with the scriptures they are put down, and what is true of some (start their verbage stuff) as it appears to show itself diliberately trying to be obscure and yet at the same time presents itself very proudly showing no peaceable, loving or gentle spirit. Humility is lacking in its presentation.

Heres an example of weird words... One could say, we reach "wamba wamba" (you must be laughing right now ) but the word is foreign, its not in the scriptures you can only guess what it is, string a few things together and call it by this very foreign and strange word and ofcourse they might get some weird looks. So I suppose in my thinking its much easier to communicate with one another using His words to avoid offense and better explain (at anothers level) what something means and how to show it in words they might grasp better. On an even playing feild one has a better chance of making their point then speaking Chinese to a Russian, I know you know what I mean So the word "made" becomes the biggest deal and one is speaking heresy but "wamba wamba" is perfectly acceptable. It gets nuts.

I do think you're right about the clashing -- the EO is careful to refer to Mary's spiritual "value" for us -- but also to celebrate that He "lifted to Himself " even the flesh (fallen) of mankind and at the end of time will lift all matter . So that she, created for Himself by Him and chosen for the purpose of His plan for the redemption of mankind and ultimately all matter ... well, pretty cool

Click to expand...

Hey there is nothing wrong with the Lord coming in the flesh Its knowing Him after it or any one after it when we get to a certain point. I think I recall many conversations with (I dont know what one would call them) I suppose one who is more "concrete" having no fliudity perhaps still carnal in his understanding rip into anything spiritually understood. In his mind one was ~spiritualizing everything away~ in my mind I was exploring the depths. Letting go of the obvious and receiving more of the mysteries I cherish.

I'd hear, so you dont take Gods word literally? All sorts of things. Like just because God is Spirit makes Him less literal or just because His words are Spirit and life (or signified) they too are not literal (in a spiritual sense) so we are more subject to misunderstanding.

I cant speak to others who are so logically minded. Specially with the sort that is so puffed up using verbage no one who hasnt graduated from Harvard would understand That sort seems more self impressed which appears to thrive on debate (for debate sake). It only appears as using you (as its own guinea pig) for its own ungodly pleasure. Well, it sure dont come off pure and peaceable or humble. Best let them chew and choke on their own pride. Only being honest with how I feel.

Again, see how first the Jews were called out of Egypt, then Joseph and Mary fled there with the infant Christ and came out of Egypt ... the early Christians (some, and we still do in the EO) refer to baptism as the coming out of Egypt, and the parting of the Red Sea ... In the Lord's prayer: on earth as it is in Heaven -- for what He wills by our cooperation is brought to earth. Eve "heard" the words of the serpent, "conceived" them and sin "was born". Mary, hearing the words of Him, "conceived" the Christ, and gave birth to Him who is our salvation ...

Some in the EO say that the virgin birth (which Satan knew would happen) was "hidden" in the marriage (Law) of Joseph and Mary.
The unbegotten Son of the Father was "hidden" in human flesh (which is under the Law), and not seeing this great wonder, thought (Satan) he accepted a mere human into Sheol, and thus the bonds of death were broken.
whoops ! on Egypt, see above ...

We are close to celebrating (in EO) the birth of the Theotokos (Mary), and seeing the types from the OT fulfilled in the NT, the hymns observe that He made for Himself a throne in the body of the virgin, that He may be enthroned in us (Sorry to mention -- that "gets me" every time

Click to expand...

There are depths I agree crucified in what is "spiritually called" Egypt would have to make one think beyond geographical boundaries huh? Theres much meaning in places and paterns in people, as Adam was a figure and even as Paul considered himself one as well.

I still dont get the Theotokos thing Thelka. Im one that can only be communicated with by His own words. Its a set boundary that He limits me in and I only hear within that boundary until He permits my conscience to step outside of it.

I consider all of us given certain boundaries and measures (in accordance with ones faith) which are set by Him spiritually as well as otherwise. The sand is a boundary for the sea, it might roar but it cannot pass His decree Knowing this invokes a great awe of God in me. Wherever others are I'm convinced they can only know or eceive what is given them to. Its Him who gives the increase or enlarges anyone of us. I believe in being faithful (where one is) with our measure. I would sure hope by His great mercy that our measure (Given by Him) measure would increase as our increase is given by Him as well. I look forward to increases I hope to sow faithfully that I might reap benefits and come to a greater knowledge of Him who I seek.

Your eggs or my eggs ?

Click to expand...

MY EGGS SIS!

I think yours look all yellow, mine aren't quite as well mixed ... I can't understand if I understood another or am understood by another without a face to look at as a "measure"

Click to expand...

Mine are all over the plate


Hugs

Uphill Battle said:

Ok, Just was thinking.

It is said that it is poor Christology to think that Mary may have been merely a "vessel." and that Jesus derived his humanity from the DNA of Mary.

Now, I have always believe that. Never had much problem with it. I read something however, that causes me to question it.

Someone was expounding on the Old Adam vs. the New Adam. Adam (old) created by God, without any former source of DNA. The author then expounded that new Adam, would also have the "creation" of God, although God the Son was never created, that the physical form WAS created in Marys womb. (the author went on to state that this does not detract from the fully God fully Man truth, as the full divinity and full humanity would be in evidence in either case.)

Is it not possible that Jesus' incarnation was not genetically linked to Mary at all?

I cannot argue againt it, I can't know what God did on the Matter.

What scripture states is the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, and she conceived. It doesn't state the exact genetic method God chose to use.

I'd like to know

1) for those who state that Jesus for CERTAIN derived his DNA from Mary, how we know that with certainty?

and

2) why it is so important that he did?


I cannot argue for or against, I'm just interested.

(for the record, I do not deny the Motherhood of Mary for Jesus.)

Click to expand...

Adam [first] came from God...and dna was present because God had created man which is made up of dna.
He being the first had only the origin of God... to make his DNA.

Jesus had to become the creature to save the creature so He had to take on DNA.... which came from Adam [the first]

Thus being the New Adam, He had to take on Adam's DNA.

If Adam had not taken on sin, neither would the Lord need to take on DNA.


AND finally...
Jesus was begotten, not made.

IE, He took on the DNA but He was not created.

Slowly...
Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega.. always was and will be.
Men are created and have a starting point to their creation. [from God]

Jesus was not created but took ON humanity 100% through Mary, and through the Holy Spirit begetting Him remaining 100% God.

WarriorAngel said:

Adam [first] came from God...and dna was present because God had created man which is made up of dna.
He being the first had only the origin of God... to make his DNA.

Jesus had to become the creature to save the creature so He had to take on DNA.... which came from Adam [the first]

Thus being the New Adam, He had to take on Adam's DNA.

If Adam had not taken on sin, neither would the Lord need to take on DNA.


AND finally...
Jesus was begotten, not made.

IE, He took on the DNA but He was not created.

Slowly...
Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega.. always was and will be.
Men are created and have a starting point to their creation. [from God]

Jesus was not created but took ON humanity 100% through Mary, and through the Holy Spirit begetting Him remaining 100% God.

Click to expand...

Exactly.


There are dubious tendencies towards Gnostic Heresy in some of the arguments being called upon in this thread. the Gnostics argued that Jesus was not a true fleshly son of Mary, but some sort of special creation.


But Jesus was NOT a counterfeit human, created in the LIKENESS of man He was MADE man. He is the true genetic son of Mary, and through her he claims his ancestry from David and from Adam - all of which is fully attested in scripture.

Axion said:

Exactly.


There are dubious tendencies towards Gnostic Heresy in some of the arguments being called upon in this thread. the Gnostics argued that Jesus was not a true fleshly son of Mary, but some sort of special creation.


But Jesus was NOT a counterfeit human, created in the LIKENESS of man He was MADE man. He is the true genetic son of Mary, and through her he claims his ancestry from David and from Adam - all of which is fully attested in scripture.

Click to expand...

I would like to see where these dubious tendencies toward Gnostic heresy are, can you please point them out?

Posts 1, 5, 35

Axion said:

Posts 1, 5, 35

Click to expand...

5 was kinda funny

Ok its the DNA question thats got your goat then. Its just a question.

Uphill Battle said:

bump for input!

Click to expand...

Yep, totaly Gnostic Heresy!

Couldn't be that your assesment was the least bit hasty?