Was Jesus procreated physically?

[JT]

The very perfection of Creation as the work of God makes the act of procreation absolutely necessary, because the All-Wisdom of God has ordered all things in Creation from the beginning so that there is nothing too much or superfluous. He who says otherwise, must also hold that the work of the Creator is also imperfect. It is the same with the person who also affirms that the birth of Christ occurred without there also being a normal procreation – this is prescribed by the Creator for all mankind. A normal procreation through a human being of flesh and blood must have taken place even here. Everyone who can see this surely praises God all the more than anyone who wants to permit other possibilities that want in logic or reason – as their faith shows conviction that any arbitrary changing in the Laws that He ordained is impossible. This is the same reason why God will not interfere in man’s messes.

“With God nothing is impossible!” I can hear already! This cliché I have heard many a time. But does it bring any satisfaction? It is the same when people said, “If thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross”.
All that needs to be said here is that want of logic, imperfection, injustice and arbitrariness are impossible with God. If nothing is impossible with God , it could be further argued that He could just have easily with a single act of His Will make every man a believer. Then He need not have permitted His Son to become a man and exposed Him to the earthly hardship and death. Christ would have been spared that sacrifice.

That things happened as they did shows the inflexible nature of the Divine laws at work, which are consistent from eternity. A forced changing of them is out of the question. The Will of God also, is not arbitrary. It is simply the conformation of the Laws based in Creation. The Laws contain the Will. Everything always has, is and always will be subject to them. There cannot be circumvention.
Otherwise, Jesus need not have been born of a woman on earth, but could quite simply have made a sudden appearance.

In order to fulfil His mission, Christ had to therefore inevitably submit to the natural laws, that is, the Will of the Father. That Christ did so is proved by His whole life – birth and growth, suffering and feelings etc. He was subject to the same things man was. Hence the doubt that arises in the minds of those that do not believe Christ was of God.

I am bemused why people think that Jesus could suddenlu appear if by magic and want to know why this belief exists - I feel "born of a virgin" simply means to a woman whose birth organs are virgin, but is was taken literally.

 

[Andrew]

Are you saying that Mary had to have had sex with someone (who?) in order for Jesus to be born, and that Jesus was like any other man, ie fell sick, got the flu, etc?

If so, its utter nonsense!

 

[caley]

In order for physical procreation to occur, there must be a seed from both a woman (egg) and a man (sperm). Is it really too hard to believe that God could have provided the male seed for Christ, thus rendering him both God and Man simultaneously?

 

[Andrew]

I certainly believe the whole miracle was of God ie Mary did not even have a part to play in the sense of contributing an egg. IOW i believe a whole foetus or (fertilised egg) was place there supernaturally by the Holy Spirit -- with no help whatsover from Mary or Joseph or any human.

But the impression I got from post 1 is that Mary had sex with someone in order to get pregnant, and that Jesus was just like any other man, weak and all.

 

[JT]

Jesus was obviously not "another" man being the Son of God, I did not say that. But I am asking why there is the belief that a pregnancy can occur by magic? There is no logic to this, it is contrary to Divine law. Now if God were to act arbritarly and break this law on this occassion, why not on other occassions? Why not make every man a believer?

And why would Jesus be outwardly different from another man, the difference was inward, his core was Divine, a man's core is spiritual. The material body had to be the same, so of course Jesus would be subject to feelings of hunger etc.

 

[Pistos Ergon]

Jesus' "core" was not divine. He was divine because of WHO He was - the Son of God. But, the pre-existent only begotten Son of God emptied Himself of His divine attributes when He became a man.

He resisted the devil as a man and not as a divine being.

And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

 

[JT]

Today at 11:14 PM Pistos Ergon said this in Post #6

Jesus' "core" was not divine. He was divine because of WHO He was - the Son of God.

Yes, I agree - what I was tryng to do was point out the difference between the physical body and the "real" self - the spirit in the case of man - Divinity Unsubstantiate, or a part out of God, as a part of the Triune-Godhead, with Jesus. The physical body of Jesus was subject to the same as other men surely, as it is made of gross matter - but the essence is Divine, as the real man is spirit - the body is his tool on earth.

 

[TWells]

Christ didnt "empty" himself of his divine nature during the incarnation. He was made "...a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death...". (Heb 2:7,9) Col 2:9 states "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."  Thats not to say that He wasnt also human. Scripture reveals that He was fully humand AND fully divine. The God-man.

Your example of Matt 4:6 doesnt make sense, are you saying that Satan tempted the Lord to turn stones to bread even when He wasnt able to?? Satan was tempting Christ to take the easy way out. Instead of following the way or mission given him by the Father, he was tempting him to come in power and begin his rule then, completely bypassing the Cross (as he tempted Him later through Peter).

Taking his divinity out of this passage lessens the temptation and obediance of our Lord!

 

[Andrew]

Jesus was obviously not "another" man being the Son of God, I did not say that. But I am asking why there is the belief that a pregnancy can occur by magic? There is no logic to this, it is contrary to Divine law. Now if God were to act arbritarly and break this law on this occassion, why not on other occassions? Why not make every man a believer?

That is why it is called a miracle. God also made other laws when he created the earth and universe, eg laws of gravity, laws of physics, biological physiological laws -- yet in His miracles these were overidden -- eg Jesus walked on water, healed the paralysed instantaneously, raised the dead, multiplied the loaves and fishes to feed 5000 -- all these go against divine laws created by God too. So why is it so hard to believe in the virgin birth.

The virgin birth is also one of the foundations of Christianity. It was prophesied. Are you then saying the prophecy was wrong? There are also impt reasons why it had to be a virgin birth. Jesus' blood could not have been 100% pure and holy (hence fit for sacrifice) if he was born naturally.

 

[TWells]

Today at 03:08 AM Andrew said this in Post #9



That is why it is called a miracle. God also made other laws when he created the earth and universe, eg laws of gravity, laws of physics, biological physiological laws -- yet in His miracles these were overidden -- eg Jesus walked on water, healed the paralysed instantaneously, raised the dead, multiplied the loaves and fishes to feed 5000 -- all these go against divine laws created by God too. So why is it so hard to believe in the virgin birth.

The virgin birth is also one of the foundations of Christianity. It was prophesied. Are you then saying the prophecy was wrong? There are also impt reasons why it had to be a virgin birth. Jesus' blood could not have been 100% pure and holy (hence fit for sacrifice) if he was born naturally.

Glad we're on the same side this time Andrew

 

[drmmjr]

Just as God created Adam from the dust of the ground, so to did God create Jesus from one of Mary's eggs. Jesus couldn't have an earthly father since that would have tied him to the sin of Adam. Just as Adam was "sinless" before disobeying God, so too was Jesus.

Just like the rest of us, Jesus was made and born of a woman.

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,
Galatians 4:5 - To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Jesus was tempted just as we are, but he didn't sin.

Hebrews 4:14 - Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast [our] profession.
Hebrews 4:15 - For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

Jesus was a baby, and grew up just like we do.

Luke 2:52 - And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

So was Jesus procreated (procreate - to produce young) physically? He was born of Mary, that's pretty physical.

 

[JT]

I just find it otherwise amusing that otherwise sensible people burden themselves with these ideas. The prophecy meant that the birth organs were virgin.

We must realize that Mary was prenatally chosen to be the earthly mother of Jesus and already brought with her all the qualities that would help her in fulfilling her role. When the time drew near for her to conceive, she experienced the Annunciation. From that moment onwards her life changed and it was only concentrated in one direction: "to be allowed to experience a Divine Grace." Mary therefore had an immaculate physical conception because all base instincts were removed from her. A condition assured through the Annunciation. This event had the effect that whatever Mary was doing was completely out of pure love of soul because her intuitions were completely pure. Her joys after the Annunciation can be gleaned from the Bible in the Magnificent Luke 2:46-55. The developing body in her womb therefore was conceived out of pure love of soul. This made her conception physically immaculate. With purity of thought reigning, nothing else could have been the result. Mary's immaculate physical conception provided the basis for an immaculate spiritual conception.

The Incarnation of Jesus was an Immaculate Spiritual one because it was an incarnation from out of the Light, out of God, not just any incarnation. Jesus therefore went through a normal process of birth. It was therefore not necessary to change any of the Laws. His physical growth was normal, His appearance and everything else was normal. The nature of Jesus therefore, should not have been a matter for much debate. His nature did not lie in His physical body which was just a tool He needed but in His essence, His core which He had derived from God. This was what allowed Him to do all He did though He did not look different from any other man. He had even said that He had not come to overthrow the Laws but to fulfill them which meant that He had come to adjust Himself to the existing Laws in Creation (Matt. 5:17).

Miracles, are nothing but acceleration of the natural laws, and due to limitations in science, we do not know all of these. You cannot override the laws of God - God does not do this, as God does not act arbitrarily - a man cannot walk on water, Jesus did not override any laws, His Divine power made His actions seem impossible, when in reality they were a consequence of His Divinity - they accelerated the healing process etc so rapidly as to make it seem like a miracle.

 I stand firm that God is not arbitrary or else why even bother with Jesus and make every man a believer? This you will not be able to answer. And I do not see why people cling to these ideas, when many, and I know they do, have doubt about it. And why did it have to be a virgin birth - this again is illogical, without Spiritual foundation, and serves no relevance to the purpose of the Son Of God.

The Laws are perfect. God is Perfect, so why change? The concept of change does not apply to God at all. Change implies improvement thereby imperfection. Perfection on the other hand implies immutability. God does not need to change even one particle of His Laws because these are perfect. He had right from the beginning taken all happenings into consideration so that nothing is too much or superfluous for His Laws to deal with. That degree of comprehensiveness is what makes His Laws perfect and as such no need for any changes.

Why do you think a Divine being on Earth would be so different outwardly than an Earth man? To believe Jesus could not get the flu........ if that is true, why not remove Himself from the cross? Again, a contradiction. We know that Jesus had feelings, became tired etc - again a contradiction. Everyone on Earth must use a physical body, it is the tool on Earth - if not why did not God come personally? And a normal procreation and birth precedes this.

Only a happening that goes beyond the origin of the human spirit can remain a mystery but never a happening at his level or below him.

An incarnation out of the Light i.e. a coming of a Part of God to this earth need not lead to a change in the Laws of God already operating, otherwise a change would indicate an imperfection not only in the Laws themselves but an imperfect God. Since we all agree that God is perfect, this Perfection which is an attribute of His is what should be used as a yardstick in all our investigations. If we agree that God is perfect, then the Laws which issue from Him are also perfect, and perfection simply means immutability, unchanging into all eternity. If therefore, a Part of God is to come to this earth, a change in the Laws of God in regard to the processes involved would not be necessary for this to be accomplished.

The Laws issuing as they are from the perfection of God must also bear within them the qualities of their producer, which is perfection. One characteristic of these Laws is comprehensiveness.

 

[Andrew]

Glad we're on the same side this time Andrew

yeah *LOL

Just as God created Adam from the dust of the ground, so to did God create Jesus from one of Mary's eggs. Jesus couldn't have an earthly father since that would have tied him to the sin of Adam. Just as Adam was "sinless" before disobeying God, so too was Jesus.

If you say God used Mary's egg, that would mean Mary had to be sin-free.
ie She herself was not tainted with the sin of Adam. This is one reason why Catholics believe Mary was born without sin and never sinned and hence never saw physical death (ie raptured like Enoch).

So, I do not believe Mary's egg was even used, but that the whole conception was all God. IOW a full-miracle.

*wonders if JT is a Christian?*

 

[panterapat]

Mary was saved from original sin by the anticipated graces of Jesus' death and resurrection. She was concieved of the Holy Spirit. Thus Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the spouse of the Holy Spirit. And since Jesus is our brother, Mary becomes our mother. Its all very simple.

 

[TWells]

And where does it state Mary was without sin?

 

[TWells]

Today at 03:40 AM JT said this in Post #12

I just find it otherwise amusing that otherwise sensible people burden themselves with these ideas. The prophecy meant that the birth organs were virgin.

When you say virgin 'birth organs' do you mean that she simply hadnt given birth to a child prior to Christ? As far as the burden being on us, we're the ones that are plainly reading the texts. Luke 1:27 states that "...virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin`s name was Mary. " Here it states plainly that Mary was a unwed virgin. Luke 1:31 states "...And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. " In verse 34 it is plainly that that Mary doesnt know a man. "...Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? " to which the angel responds: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." I think the burden of proof is on you to explain why these passages dont mean what they obviously appear to.

Today at 03:40 AM JT said this in Post #12 
Mary therefore had an immaculate physical conception because all base instincts were removed from her.

Can you show us this scripturally?

Today at 03:40 AM JT said this in Post #12 
A condition assured through the Annunciation. This event had the effect that whatever Mary was doing was completely out of pure love of soul because her intuitions were completely pure. Her joys after the Annunciation can be gleaned from the Bible in the Magnificent Luke 2:46-55. The developing body in her womb therefore was conceived out of pure love of soul. This made her conception physically immaculate. With purity of thought reigning, nothing else could have been the result. Mary's immaculate physical conception provided the basis for an immaculate spiritual conception.

The Incarnation of Jesus was an Immaculate Spiritual one because it was an incarnation from out of the Light, out of God, not just any incarnation. Jesus therefore went through a normal process of birth. It was therefore not necessary to change any of the Laws. His physical growth was normal, His appearance and everything else was normal. The nature of Jesus therefore, should not have been a matter for much debate. His nature did not lie in His physical body which was just a tool He needed but in His essence, His core which He had derived from God. This was what allowed Him to do all He did though He did not look different from any other man. He had even said that He had not come to overthrow the Laws but to fulfill them which meant that He had come to adjust Himself to the existing Laws in Creation (Matt. 5:17).

Not even gonna attempt it.

Today at 03:40 AM JT said this in Post #12 
Miracles, are nothing but acceleration of the natural laws, and due to limitations in science, we do not know all of these.

I think I understand your point, but your not doing a very good job of explaining it.

Today at 03:40 AM JT said this in Post #12 
You cannot override the laws of God - God does not do this, as God does not act arbitrarily - a man cannot walk on water, Jesus did not override any laws,

Isnt this self contradictory? You say 'Jesus walked on water' but didnt 'override any natural laws' When was the last time you walked on water?

Today at 03:40 AM JT said this in Post #12 
His Divine power made His actions seem impossible, when in reality they were a consequence of His Divinity - they accelerated the healing process etc so rapidly as to make it seem like a miracle. 

What healing processes?? Your losing me here?

Today at 03:40 AM JT said this in Post #12 

 I stand firm that God is not arbitrary or else why even bother with Jesus and make every man a believer?

Because God decided to reconcile man to himself. I dont see what this has to do with anything.

Today at 03:40 AM JT said this in Post #12 
This you will not be able to answer. And I do not see why people cling to these ideas, when many, and I know they do, have doubt about it.

I wasnt aware that you asked a question and I have NO IDEA why your clinging to these ideas.

Today at 03:40 AM JT said this in Post #12 
 And why did it have to be a virgin birth - this again is illogical, without Spiritual foundation, and serves no relevance to the purpose of the Son Of God.

To cause a break in the line from Adam, to show Christ was without original sin. That aside you say that it has no "spiritual foundation" but is OBVIOUSLY has a SCRIPTURAL one. Please explain why your logic overrides scripture and please explain how we have misinterpreted the verses I listed above.

Today at 03:40 AM JT said this in Post #12 
The Laws are perfect. God is Perfect, so why change? The concept of change does not apply to God at all. Change implies improvement thereby imperfection. Perfection on the other hand implies immutability. God does not need to change even one particle of His Laws because these are perfect. He had right from the beginning taken all happenings into consideration so that nothing is too much or superfluous for His Laws to deal with. That degree of comprehensiveness is what makes His Laws perfect and as such no need for any changes.

And all this time I thought physical death was a result of the fall...

Today at 03:40 AM JT said this in Post #12 
Why do you think a Divine being on Earth would be so different outwardly than an Earth man? To believe Jesus could not get the flu........

Who claimed he didnt get the flu. The Bible states he was fully man and fully God.

Today at 03:40 AM JT said this in Post #12 
if that is true, why not remove Himself from the cross? Again, a contradiction. We know that Jesus had feelings, became tired etc - again a contradiction. Everyone on Earth must use a physical body, it is the tool on Earth - if not why did not God come personally? And a normal procreation and birth precedes this.

 

Today at 03:40 AM JT said this in Post #12 
Only a happening that goes beyond the origin of the human spirit can remain a mystery but never a happening at his level or below him.

An incarnation out of the Light i.e. a coming of a Part of God to this earth need not lead to a change in the Laws of God already operating, otherwise a change would indicate an imperfection not only in the Laws themselves but an imperfect God. Since we all agree that God is perfect, this Perfection which is an attribute of His is what should be used as a yardstick in all our investigations. If we agree that God is perfect, then the Laws which issue from Him are also perfect, and perfection simply means immutability, unchanging into all eternity. If therefore, a Part of God is to come to this earth, a change in the Laws of God in regard to the processes involved would not be necessary for this to be accomplished.

The Laws issuing as they are from the perfection of God must also bear within them the qualities of their producer, which is perfection. One characteristic of these Laws is comprehensiveness.

You lost me a long time ago....

 

[JT]

Today at 04:30 PM TWells said this in Post #16


Isnt this self contradictory? You say 'Jesus walked on water' but didnt 'override any natural laws' When was the last time you walked on water?

Jesus could not possibly have walked on water - I didn't say that - the basis of what I am saying is that a Divine being does not appear differently on the outside - the difference is on the inside. And that Jesus' body must have been subject to the laws of the earth, hence procreated physically, as there is no other logical way for pregnancy to occur.


What healing processes?? Your losing me here?

Spiritual healers, and I am sure many may be familiar with them, often help to cure illnesses. What this is is merely Spiritual power accelerating treatment and the healing process. Jesus, being Divine, stood in an infinitely higher power, so that the healing process of the person in question that He cured was accelerated so quickly it seemed a miracle. There is no trickery involved


To cause a break in the line from Adam, to show Christ was without original sin.

Do you know what original sin is? I'd like to hear your take on it. Either way, if Christ is a part out of God, then of course there is no sin, however Christ came into the world.


 

 

[TWells]

Today at 05:08 PM JT said this in Post #17

Jesus could not possibly have walked on water - I didn't say that - the basis of what I am saying is that a Divine being does not appear differently on the outside - the difference is on the inside. And that Jesus' body must have been subject to the laws of the earth, hence procreated physically, as there is no other logical way for pregnancy to occur.

Hey JT,

First of all I would like to point out that you still havent explained why the traditional interpretation of Luke as I gave above is wrong. Second, you seem to be saying that because Jesus had a physical body and that He was subject to nature like the rest of us then he obviously had to have been born through normal means. I dont understand where you get that one implies the other? Once again, why is scripture wrong?

Today at 05:08 PM JT said this in Post #17
Spiritual healers, and I am sure many may be familiar with them, often help to cure illnesses.

I believe in the power of prayer. If referring to healers or miracle workers like Benny Hinn, then I dont believe its the same.

Today at 05:08 PM JT said this in Post #17

What this is is merely Spiritual power accelerating treatment and the healing process. Jesus, being Divine, stood in an infinitely higher power, so that the healing process of the person in question that He cured was accelerated so quickly it seemed a miracle.

Here your stating that you have knowledge of the mechanics of miracles. Im not saying thats not HOW God chose cure people but that we dont know. Using this as evidence for a natural birth for Christ contrary to scripture doesnt make sense. One doesnt follow the other. How do you explain the feeding of the five thousand did God cause the dead fish to come back alive, reproduce thousands of fully grown dead fish, then die again in a highly accelerated way? What about with the bread?

Today at 05:08 PM JT said this in Post #17

There is no trickery involved

No ones implying trickery either, the bread was real, the fish was real, the healings were real and he really walked on water.

Today at 05:08 PM JT said this in Post #17

Do you know what original sin is?

Yes, I do and my example was regarding the relationship between the Virgin Birth and Original Sin.

Today at 05:08 PM JT said this in Post #17

I'd like to hear your take on it.

Ok...OS is the first sin that Adam committed, the consequence of which we are all born with a hereditary "stain" of sin.

"For as by one man`s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." - Romans 5:19

In relation to the Virgin Birth and its importance was that the ordinary transmission of sin was interrupted by His miraculous conception. It underlines the fact that he was without sin. (2 Cor 5:21, 1 Jn 3:5)

Today at 05:08 PM JT said this in Post #17

Either way, if Christ is a part out of God, then of course there is no sin, however Christ came into the world.  

If you dont mind, would you mind explaining what denomination (if any) that your a part of? Do you believe in the Trinity? Full deity of Christ?

 

[TWells]

el bumpo