P
protestantman
Guest
He was consecrated for a different purpouse. He was not without sin when he was born, and was concieved in the common fashion. Therefore he was a biological decendant. He was concieved and then consecrated.
- Status
P
protestantman
Guest
It was through his birth that he was made in the flesh. His birth was typical, his conception was not.
M
mikeledes
Guest
He’s the first Protestant I’ve met that denies the biological connection between Jesus and Mary. You don’t even find that notion among the Protestant Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.)God bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
And why is it impossible that, in Jesus’s case, Jesus could have a single biological parent? How does that contradict Jesus’s “consecration?” Particularly when such a situation is pretty unique?
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
We are not typically born of virgin mothers or have a single biological parent. Why must you deny that Mary was Jesus’s biological mother? Or is it impossible for God to do such a thing?God Bless,
Michael
D
deanarrca
Guest
Back the cart up I just thought about this Protestant Man
You claim No biological connection between Mary’s seed and Christ
Then these two Scriptures would make absolutely no sense.
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmityBetween you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head,And you shall bruise him on the heel."
Revelation 12:17
And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
(Denominations I am personally familiar with: Anglican, Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God, Church of God, Many Non-Denominational Churches, Methodist, Presbyterian and I am sure other Posters can add to this list.)
One does not impart human nature from simply the birth process. The reason Jesus had a human nature was that he had the biological seed, the human nature from Mary joined to his divine nature.
If it was only necessary for him to have a surrogate mother, God could have chosen any women. There would be no real reason for her to be Full of Grace or any reason for Every Nation to Call her blest.
You claim No biological connection between Mary’s seed and Christ
Well back to the two scripture I posted about Mary’s seed (OK I get that you don’t believe that Mary needed to be free from original sin in order not to pass it to Jesus). However to claim that her seed was not in Jesus biologically, is very unbiblical.
Then these two Scriptures would make absolutely no sense.
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmityBetween you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head,And you shall bruise him on the heel."
Revelation 12:17
And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
I again I will repeat I have never had this taught in any of the Protestant denominations I was a member of or have studied doctrine from. And I do not believe it is Biblical by any stretch.
(Denominations I am personally familiar with: Anglican, Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God, Church of God, Many Non-Denominational Churches, Methodist, Presbyterian and I am sure other Posters can add to this list.)
One does not impart human nature from simply the birth process. The reason Jesus had a human nature was that he had the biological seed, the human nature from Mary joined to his divine nature.
If it was only necessary for him to have a surrogate mother, God could have chosen any women. There would be no real reason for her to be Full of Grace or any reason for Every Nation to Call her blest.
P
protestantman
Guest
I think it is more difficult than that.
God bless,
Michael
1- Christ was with God at the begining. - How could Mary’s genes have anything to do with that.
2- Christ was born in flesh - he was succeptable to the same temtation as man, and he suffered the pains of his crucifiction.
3- Christ’s geneology was traced through Joseph although Joseph was not his true father.
Its difficult to say exactly the circumstances of Christs birth, or the depth that he was considered of the line of David. I dont see why God would go through the process of the Virgin birth without a relevant reason.
The only things that I have said, that I know for sure to be true, are the fact that Mary was unrighteous, yet Christ was righteous.
I think that even though he had flesh through the birth from Mary, I don’t necesarily think that his genes were from Mary. Did the HS contribute the other 22 chromisomes? or did he contribute all 46? There are no specifics on this. Therefore, we can only speculate. In reality, I ddont think that it is possible to truly understand.
I am not saying that I know either way, I am offering an opposing view. The important part is that Christ was born and died a sinnless man. The same is not said of Mary. It is only speculation. This is why I dont understand why many are so set in stone on the issue. I see Mary like I see Moses or any of the Apostles. They were all chosen by God to serve Gods purpouse. None of them where asked, they were told.
P
protestantman
Guest
Then these two Scriptures would make absolutely no sense.
This is specifically about the enimty between us and snakes. This was a curse upon the animal that satan used to tempt Eve. This has nothing to do with sin nature or Christ.
This whole chapter speaks of the Fall of Lucifer. Much of this is figurative. It also says that the woman was given wings. Did eve or Mary have wings?. The womans seed, is figurative here also.
M
mikeledes
Guest
Mary’s genes would only apply to Christ’s human nature. If Jesus is fully God and fully Man, then I believe He would have the standard set of chromosomes, and hences would have genes.
The only basis I see for this opposing view of the biological descent of Jesus is a backlash against Catholic teachings on Mary. As a reaction to Catholicism, too many Protestants throw out the baby with the bath water.
God Bless,
Michael
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
I think I know where the predisposition to denial comes from. There is a word for it but I can’t call to mind the exact Greek expression for the condition. But its a term for a theological filter or bias that spawns from scripture what one wants to see based on one’s own held theology and doctrine. Everyone wants to be omnificent. So it’s not uncommon to see a lot of strange step children coming out from the creative acts going on behind the closed doors of private interpretation. Unfortunately, the reality is that the Protestant predisposition is to see **anything but **what Catholics see. And that can lead to a legion of combinations of interesting, and curiously creative acts. But the baby rarely ends up looking anything like what we Catholics recognize as Truth.
God Bless,
Michael
Sigh, we just need to find the contradictions and drive a wooden stake in this lil’ sucker before it runs off and replicates itself somewhere else like all its predecessors…
James
M
mikeledes
Guest
So Satan is not the Serpent? This is new to me. I’ve never heard a Protestant say that the Serpent is not the Devil himself, just an animal used by the devil.Revelation 12:9
**9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. **
God Bless,
Michael
J
jmcrae
Guest
He was not yet Man. He gets his human nature from Mary; not his divine nature. (But she gave birth to one person who had two natures - human and divine - this is why she is called the Theotokos - the Mother of God.)
It is because He already existed, before He was conceived.
The Angel Gabriel disagrees with you; he called her “Full of Grace.”
The Holy Spirit did not contribute any chromosomes. Jesus’ flesh is entirely from Mary.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
I think you need to get some background in Christology to be able to understand the Catholic answers to these questions.
James
D
deanarrca
Guest
You are right: The important part is that Christ was born and died a sinnless man. .
That I will agree is a basic. He had to complete what Adam didn’t.
He became the new Adam.
Only to you is it speculation. It comes down again to the issue of Authority. They may have been told but they said yes and did. They had free will and didn’t have to.
P
protestantman
Guest
The importance is that Christ was without sin, and born in accordance to the Prophesies. Outside of that, I would not dare teach my view here as truth. I dont think I will ever know the total Truth on this subject while I am alive. I openly admit that I could be wrong on what I have suggested. Thus I am also not dogmatic about it. I just offer an oppsing suggestion.
I agree that this is also possible. I also like the way you worded it.
Has noone else ever been full of Grace or called blessed?
What of David, Daniel, Moses, Abrahem, Noah, Elijah, Elisha, and many others.
N
Namesake
Guest
That’s a little hard to accept. You don’t believe that Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist?
J
jmcrae
Guest
WHAT??
NO, it’s a prophecy about Mary giving birth to Jesus. It means that a second Eve (Mary) will give birth to a second Adam (Jesus) in order to reverse the sin that took place in the Garden of Eden.
It has nothing to do with snakes.
But it’s also obvious that it has to be a metaphor of Jesus, right? (I hope?)
P
protestantman
Guest
This is all difficult to say exactly. I mean, did Satan tempt Eve in the for of Dragon or a snake? There is so much figurative speak about this subject, that is difficult to say for certain whether or not it was a snake possesed by Satan, or Satan in his true form. I believe he desguised himself as a snake. Genesis 3:1 even points out that the serpent was the craftiest animal that God created.
Revelation 12:9
9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
God Bless,
Michael
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.
M
mikeledes
Guest
The serpent is definitely Satan. I have never met a Protestant who denies that. And Genesis 3:15 has always been interpreted - dating back to the Church Fathers - as the first prophecy of a coming messiah. Even many Protestant theologians and churches believe that.
God bless,
Michael
P
protestantman
Guest
I am not attempting to backlash. I just dont understand what is about Mary that you hold here in such a lofty position. The Apostles never adressed Mary in this way. The NT doesnt reference that she was without sin. All I have read, is that she was called blessed and that she was full of Grace. But these things could be attributed to many others as well. (David, Daniel,etc.)Mary’s genes would only apply to Christ’s human nature. If Jesus is fully God and fully Man, then I believe He would have the standard set of chromosomes, and hences would have genes.
The only basis I see for this opposing view of the biological descent of Jesus is a backlash against Catholic teachings on Mary. As a reaction to Catholicism, too many Protestants throw out the baby with the bath water.
God Bless,
Michael
- Status