Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sevenbak
Here is an explanation you may find of interest:


Although Jesus grew in the womb of Mary, in the same manner as any baby, he was different from all other babies. It appears that he was not genetically related to either Mary or Joseph, for both had an inherited sin nature. Jesus was sinless, and one may reasonably assume without genetic flaw, since he was to serve as the spotless and sacrificial Lamb of God.

▪ Ever since the Creation, each subsequent life has been created at the moment of conception. Scientifically, the new entity begins at the moment the DNA of man and woman combine. This was not the case with Jesus. As a spirit and part of the Trinity, Jesus existed before the Creation of the world. In fact, John reveals that he is the Creator (John 1).

▪ Furthermore, the physical body of Jesus as born in Bethlehem was clearly a special creation of God, placed in Mary’s womb. This is the biblical doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

Thus, neither Christ’s spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary’s egg or from any man’s sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19).

Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve’s sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin—from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be—he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29).

971 posted on 04/07/2008 1:40:03 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter.—WChurchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 957 | View Replies ]


To: Albion Wilde

It’s certainly an interesting idea, but not supported by the scriptures.

I didn’t realize there were so many orthodox Christians who had such diverse beliefs about the reality of Mary being the literal mother of God, after the manner of the flesh. Even the evangelical types on here don’t all agree.


999 posted on 04/07/2008 2:16:20 PM PDT by sevenbak (1 Corinthians 2:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 971 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson