Apparently you do not understand the meaning of "No one can explain a miracle other than by saying God does it."
IOW, I don't. I state what the miracle of the virgin conception was IMO (implanting a clean zygote), not how God did it.
Was Mary Sinless?
- Thread starter randyk
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Apparently you do not understand the meaning of "No one can explain a miracle other than by saying God does it."
IOW, I don't. I state what the miracle of the virgin conception was IMO (implanting a clean zygote), not how God did it.
Jesus must've been conceived in a supernatural way akin to IVF, not IUI (intra-uterine insemination), therefore he was NOT coded with Mary's DNA (which would be distantly related to Joseph's, since they both descended from king David).
I believe Jesus, as the second Adam, was more like a carbon copy of Adam. He was sinless as much as the original, pre-lapsarian Adam. Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, while all their descendants were created in the image of Adam, in "his own likeness", that means they were born as post-lapsarian sinners. As long as Mary and Joseph descended from Adam and Eve, they were not sinless.
Yes, the conception of Jesus was supernatural, but it is the resurrection of Jesus that is the crucial miracle.
It seems problematic to view Jesus as a copy of Adam, because Jesus was the Original pre-incarnate Son,
and no time elapsed when Adam was perfect, merely very good (Gen. 1:31).
It's not as long as Jesus is addressed as the Second Adam and the Last Adam. As long as Adam was the first and only man created sinless - until he sinned, he's the only template of "sinlessness". For lord Jesus to incarnate in human flesh, there's no other human template.
... God created man in His own image (prelapsarian, sinLESS), in the image of God hecreated him; male and female He created them. (Gen. 1:27)
... and Adam lived 130 years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image (post-lapsarian, sinFUL), and named him Seth. (Gen. 5:3)
I agree with Genesis saying the (triune) God created man in His own image rather than with interpreting "last Adam" to mean God created the Son in man's image".
When the sun stood still for a day in Joshua 10...didn't that violate the laws of nature?
How about when Jesus raised Lazurus? Wouldn't that fly in the face of the laws of nature? Or when he changed the chemical nature of water into wine?
What about when the ax head floated in 2 Kings, defying the natural law of density?
It seems to me that God can do what He wants. Including "violating" laws of nature.
Then the Lord said in His Word if one doesn't work he should not eat - ever see that in 2 Thessalonians 3:10?
In other words there is no free ride, so free loaders should not be given free stuff so they can lay around being lazy.
And yet in the scripture we see the Lord putting labels on bad actors.
Like when Jesus called some folks tares who are children of the devil mixed in with believers for the purpose of trying to deceive believers.
Those that refuse to accept the Lord's warnings given in His Word do so at their own peril.
The time has come to man up and stand for the Lord first and foremost and stop putting people before the Lord which is what many are doing as they accept all manner of false doctrine as being "christian" just because those peddling the false doctrine claim to be Christians
Why does the suggestion that the miracle was the implantation of a clean zygote upset you?
What do you think the miracle was?
This worship of Mary is nothing new, it could be traced back to cult of Ishtar in the middle east, known as Astarte in the bible, specifically criticized by prophet Jeremiah. The name literally means "progeny", symbolizing ferility and sexuality, it later morphed into Aphrodite and Venus in Greece and Rome. Going back further, in ancient Egypt she was known as Isis; further than that, all the way to the city of Babal, she was Semiramis, Nimrod's queen. After Nimrod's death, she raised their son and claimed him to be Nimrod's reincarnate and she the mother of god. Mary is just the catholic version of that, whitewashed with sanitized Christian lingo, the imagery of Mary holding baby Jesus is the reprise of Semiramis holding her son, same cult.
You are the first person I have met who puts Adam's "sonship" or creation from dust on a par
with the incarnation of the eternal God the Son. Is there a denomination that does that, or
is it just you?
So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. Josh 10:13
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. Prov 14:15
The sun still stands still in the center of heaven and the planets rotate around it.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2 Thess 2:11
How does implanting a gamete violate the laws of nature since In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is performed by doctors today?
Implanting a gamete in Liz was your idea in #71, so are you asking yourself that question?
My idea was a clean zygote in Mary, which cannot be done by doctors.
Please reread #81 and do not repeat yourself or else discussion is useless.
Again, the suggestion that the miracle was the implantation of a clean zygote merely states what the miracle was,
NOT how it was done.
If you do not like my idea, what is your understanding of what the miracle was?
I'm not, Paul was, read his theological argument in Rom. 5:12-21 - "therefore, as through one man's offense judgement came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life." “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."
It took a minute, but I do get the connection. God formed Adam and breathed on him and Adam became a living soul, and in the same sense, God breathed (His Word) on Mary and she received Him. Is this a reasonable synopsis of your idea?
The Lord's partaking of Adam's, "From dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return" especially comes to mind (though, unlike Adam, triumphant against decay).
Last edited: