What came first Jesus or the egg?

[Mickey]

Last night at a prayer meeting we discussed the miracles of Christ, but the one we didn't disscuss was the Virgin Birth (The greatest miracle of all). After we decided to disscuss the Virgin Birth at the next meeting, someone mentioned that he had been raked over the coals at a bible study they once attended, when he proposed that Mary contributed the egg and the Holy Spirit did His part in the rest. His critics said Mary couldn't have contributed an egg because Christ would have then inherited our sinfull nature.

I will jump in with the sharks here and say what seems to make sence to me. Ok here goes, be easy on me guys!

Mary did indeed contribute the egg. Because Jesus was 'very man and very God,' to say she didn't because Jesus would have inherited our sinful nature would seem to me to boarder line the 1 centery gnostic heresy that all things material are evil. Our skin and bones doesn't make us sinful, niether are the womans eggs sinful; the imputation of Adams sin to the elect by God's decree only makes us sinful (the substance of the reprobate's sin is different altogether). In this case I would say that Mary is one of God's elect. There wasn't a human male involved in the conception, so I would say it is of a different substance than that of ours, but nevertheless Christ was still 'very man.'

Anyway we all know the doctrine of the hypostatic union. But the issue at hand is did mary contribute the egg, and if so would Christ have inherited or sinful nature or did God impregnate her without her egg?

Mike

[Ivor Thomas]

The body and human-nature-conceived of the Holy Spirit in Mary-not only never could have existence as a seperate entity of itself: it was created for nothing but the instantaneous incarnation and the immediate assumption of the Son of God.At and with the creation by the Holy Spirit of that which was conceived in Mary,the divine Son received forthwith human nature into union with his own deity and took that frail and tiny substance that was to grow and be born into the world as his body,took it I say, as his own flesh. Ivor Thomas.

[Mickey]

The body and human-nature-conceived of the Holy Spirit in Mary-not only never could have existence as a seperate entity of itself: it was created for nothing but the instantaneous incarnation and the immediate assumption of the Son of God.At and with the creation by the Holy Spirit of that which was conceived in Mary,the divine Son received forthwith human nature into union with his own deity and took that frail and tiny substance that was to grow and be born into the world as his body,took it I say, as his own flesh. Ivor Thomas.

In other words Mary contributed the egg.

Mike

[Ivor Thomas]

In other words Mary contributed the egg.

Mike

No not at all read it again please, if Mary contributed the egg, that would make a seperate entity that could never be, the record in Mathew says born of Mary, please look again at what I wrote. Ivor Thomas.

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

Well, one this is for sure; the "egg" didn't come from Mary of her own free-will.

To assume God simply popped a fetus into her womb is a little too fabulous for my understanding. To consider this destroys the rational for "God made flesh".

Christ being both God and man 200% indicates that the "flesh" had to some from somewhere and the process of child conception/birth is completely evident in the synoptic gospel accounts.

[Mickey]

Ivor, I didn't quite understand what you wrote that is why I said what I said. I'm just not understanding the negitive theological implications of saying that Mary contributed the egg. What is the 'seperate entity' you speak of? If you could spell it out in simpler language that would be nice.

Mike

[Ivor Thomas]

Ivor, I didn't quite understand what you wrote that is why I said what I said. I'm just not understanding the negitive theological implications of saying that Mary contributed the egg. What is the 'seperate entity' you speak of? If you could spell it out in simpler language that would be nice.

Mike

Hope this helps, Marys egg would have the capacity to have been a seperate entity that is why it could not be like this. The Holy Spirit created the body and human nature in Marys womb from the humanity and nature of Mary `apart from sin', for the immediate union by the incarnation, His body is unique, dont know if this will help the first man Adam was from the dust, the second man from heaven. Ivor Tomas .

[Robert R. Higby]

If one rejects the notion of the biological transmission of sin or the rebellious nature inherited by all mankind (like I certainly do), there is no problem with accepting the view that Mary contributed the female element in biological human conception.

Sin is a spiritual principle, as certainly as righteousness is likewise a spiritual principle. It cannot be inherited through the genes.

[Vantilian]

Marys egg would have the capacity to have been a seperate entity that is why it could not be like this. The Holy Spirit created the body and human nature in Marys womb from the humanity and nature of Mary `apart from sin', for the immediate union by the incarnation, His body is unique, dont know if this will help the first man Adam was from the dust, the second man from heaven. Ivor Tomas .

I am with Mike in that this statement, as with the previous, needs unpacking. What do you mean by "the capacity to have been a separate entity"? Do you mean that if it was Mary's egg then Jesus could have not been Jesus? I think I am losing you on the terms "capacity" and "separate entity".

[wildboar]

This sounds an awful lot like the idea that Jesus had some special blood that he didn't get from Mary. I don't see the problem with the idea that God fertilized one of Mary's eggs in some way. Jesus probably looked like Mary to some degree.

[Ivor Thomas]

But the advent was not a union of two persons. The Son of God did not indwell a human person of unique origin called Jesus. On the contrary, the name Jesus was given to the Son of God to signify his becoming incarnate in the body prepared and uniting to his divinity the human nature created. Therefore , far from the incarnation being a union of two persons, one divine and one human, it was a union of two natures in one person. This is to avoid the error of duality. Ivor Thomas.

[Vantilian]

But the advent was not a union of two persons. The Son of God did not indwell a human person of unique origin called Jesus. Therefore, far from the incarnation being a union of two persons, one divine and one human, it was a union of two natures in one person. This is to avoid the error of duality. Ivor Thomas.

Would it be possible that God had, since before the foundation of the world, ordained the one egg used in Christ's incarnation to be always and nothing but the "egg" of the Son of God? Why must we call the egg a "human person of unique origin called Jesus"? If that egg was, without a doubt, planned and executed to be the egg used for the incarnation, then I don't see how it would be a human person of unique origin, but it would always be that which when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary would be the Son of God incarnate.

[wildboar]

Christ was certainly not two persons. In the incarnation God lost nothing of what He had but took on a human nature. This included a human body and a human soul. I don't see how God creating a body to be born in is any less likely to lead to Nestorianism than God using the egg which He had given Mary. The danger I see in denying that God used Mary's egg is a denial of the true human nature of Christ--a gnosticism of sorts that views the physical world as too vial for God to ever be a part of. It is the same thing which has led the Roman Catholics to teach the sinlessness of Mary.

[Ivor Thomas]

Christ was certainly not two persons. In the incarnation God lost nothing of what He had but took on a human nature. This included a human body and a human soul. I don't see how God creating a body to be born in is any less likely to lead to Nestorianism than God using the egg which He had given Mary. The danger I see in denying that God used Mary's egg is a denial of the true human nature of Christ--a gnosticism of sorts that views the physical world as too vial for God to ever be a part of. It is the same thing which has led the Roman Catholics to teach the sinlessness of Mary.

WB see in my posts I do not deny the human nature of Christ, but you err greatly when in your prior post you said Jesus blood was not special, the blood type of the Son of God was a seperate and precious type unlike any other , and to fertalise the egg, as was put sounds more like transubstansiation, than incarnation. Ivor Thomas.

[Skeuos Eleos]

WB see in my posts I do not deny the human nature of Christ, but you err greatly when in your prior post you said Jesus blood was not special, the blood type of the Son of God was a seperate and precious type unlike any other , and to fertalise the egg, as was put sounds more like transubstansiation, than incarnation. Ivor Thomas.

Ivor, could you please point me to the scriptures that lead you to the view that Jesus' blood was of a special type?

Also, could you please explain to me what you mean by transubstansiation, why it is different to incarnation, why WB's statement seems to you to lead to it and why it is wrong. The only context I have heard that word in before is referring to the erroneous RCC belief that the bread and wine are supposedly supernaturally transformed into Jesus' real body and blood and so I am struggling to understand what you are saying. Many thanks,

Martin

[Ivor Thomas]

Ivor, could you please point me to the scriptures that lead you to the view that Jesus' blood was of a special type?

Also, could you please explain to me what you mean by transubstansiation, why it is different to incarnation, why WB's statement seems to you to lead to it and why it is wrong. The only context I have heard that word in before is referring to the erroneous RCC belief that the bread and wine are supposedly supernaturally transformed into Jesus' real body and blood and so I am struggling to understand what you are saying. Many thanks,

Martin

I would refer you back to my first post in this thread what you think of that ,read all that lead to where we are now and then see what you think, but already I will say if you dont think the blood of Jesus is special I can not help you. Ivor Thomas..

[Eileen]

The question: "the issue at hand is did Mary contribute the egg and if so would Christ have inherited our sinful nature or did God impregnate her without the egg"

Luke 1:31,34,35
"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS, 34 then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?, 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, 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"

That is what is written, that is what we have the privilege of knowing.

1 Ti 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..........

This seems to me to be one of those mysteries that is best left alone, but that is my opinion only. Thanks for the space to write it.

[Skeuos Eleos]

I would refer you back to my first post in this thread what you think of that ,read all that lead to where we are now and then see what you think

I have already read all of your posts but I am afraid I am still unable to grasp quite what you are saying. For example, in your very first post you say:

The body and human-nature-conceived of the Holy Spirit in Mary-not only never could have existence as a seperate entity of itself

but then later you say

the divine Son received forthwith human nature into union with his own deity and took that frail and tiny substance that was to grow and be born into the world as his body

What is this "tiny substance" that you say Jesus 'took'? How could he 'take' it if it did not already exist?

Further, you said:

Marys egg would have the capacity to have been a seperate entity that is why it could not be like this.

but this is fallacious reasoning built upon what is, to those who affirm the absolute sovereignty of God, a non-existant possibility, and what follows it is "non sequitor"

Again you said:

The Holy Spirit created the body and human nature in Marys womb from the humanity and nature of Mary

Is this not another way of saying an egg without saying an egg? Where did the body get the humanity and nature of Mary from?

But the advent was not a union of two persons. The Son of God did not indwell a human person of unique origin called Jesus. On the contrary, the name Jesus was given to the Son of God to signify his becoming incarnate in the body prepared and uniting to his divinity the human nature created. Therefore , far from the incarnation being a union of two persons, one divine and one human, it was a union of two natures in one person. This is to avoid the error of duality.

But you've already said there was some 'substance' that the Son of God 'took' - trying to understand the difference ...

... and I know I can be a bit slow to pick things up and miss things but I am still struggling to see where any of these posts answer my previous questions about transubstansiation.

Then again I think Eileen's warning is relevant. Whichever way we take the argument we are in danger of goind beyond what is revealed to us.

but already I will say if you dont think the blood of Jesus is special I can not help you. Ivor Thomas..

Do you mean you "can not help" me as in you cannot "point me to the scriptures that lead you to the view that Jesus' blood was of a special type?" or as in you are unwilling to help me? If, as I may wrongly interpret, you mean unwilling is that because you are thinking that if I do not recognise any special value of the blood of Jesus then perhaps I completely misunderstand the gospel? If so then why would you be unwilling to help me? Surely, on the contrary, you should be most willing to help me - unless you think I have in some way demonstrated myself to be a swine before whom you should not cast your pearls? Furthermore, you seem to be missing the original context of the discussion which is talking about Jesus physical blood and my question did not ask for proof that Jesus blood is special in the spritual sense as you seem to be referring to here but rather I specifically quoted what you said in the first place when you said it was a "seperate and precious type unlike any other " - in your response you ommited the word 'type' as in 'blood type' that was in my original question giving it a different meaning. All this in turn was in response to WB who was clearly talking about the physical properties of the blood not its efficacy in atoning for the sin's of God's elect. I would be grateful for some clarification here please.

Martin

[Robert R. Higby]

For me, Heb. 2:14-17 is clear on this: Jesus took our flesh and blood (Phil. 2:7,8 also). Since there is nothing in the human biological gene that constitutes sin in and of itself, there is no reason to propose that he had to take on a metamorphosized flesh and blood.

In the incarnation, Jesus simply veiled his Deity in a human tent, which clothed his Divine person with the characteristics of a real human spirit, soul, and body. Not two persons--but a clothing and veiling of Deity in real humanity. Also, there was/is complete communion between the divine and human aspects of Christ's spirit/soul.

[Ivor Thomas]

Martin first of all, I meant it in a way that[ I would be inadequate ]to fully explain to you, but here goes, in normal relations between a man and a woman-the female ovum has no blood, neither does the male sperm, but it is when these come together in the fallopian tube that conception takes place, the blood is made and a new life begins. Also a female only has chromasone X which is female to pass on, the male only carries Y for a male. This is part of reason -Jesus type blood is the most special blood that ever was. Now transubstantiation [glad thats over] changing one nature into another. thanks Ivor Thomas.