Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Forest Keeper; xzins; wagglebee
Well, conception is an event that takes place in an instant. I don't think of it as a process. Once the Spirit touched Mary's egg, my opinion is that the rest was a normal pregnancy

Touched Mary's egg? Where did you read that the HS "touched" Mary's egg? Is that scriptural? The mechanism of Incarnation, as far as I know, was never scripturally explained. It is, however, described as an event wholly supernatural.

The "instant" was supernatural, the Child was supernatural, the pregnancy therefore could only have been miraculous and supernatural, yet the birth, for some reason, "must" be nothing short of "natural."

So, I am askingyou again: At which point did it become "natural" and where doe sit say so?

1,591 posted on 12/16/2006 5:30:46 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1587 | View Replies ]


To: kosta50; Forest Keeper

Scripturally, the indication is that Mary became pregnant at the time that "The Holy Spirit came upon her" and she was "Overshadowed by the power of the Most High."

It's fairly clear.


1,594 posted on 12/16/2006 5:57:28 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1591 | View Replies ]

To: kosta50; xzins; wagglebee
Touched Mary's egg? Where did you read that the HS "touched" Mary's egg? Is that scriptural? The mechanism of Incarnation, as far as I know, was never scripturally explained. It is, however, described as an event wholly supernatural.

I read it in the same scripture Xzins refers to when he quotes: "The Holy Spirit came upon her" and she was "Overshadowed by the power of the Most High." I think that if DNA testing was available at the time, and such a test was done, it would prove that Mary and Jesus were blood relatives. Do you think otherwise? --- Because no sex was involved, the fertilization of Mary's egg was supernatural.

The "instant" was supernatural, the Child was supernatural, the pregnancy therefore could only have been miraculous and supernatural, yet the birth, for some reason, "must" be nothing short of "natural."

What about the pregnancy do you find supernatural? Pregnancy is a nine-month process. How was it different from what we experienced? Just because the baby happened to be Jesus is not evidence that the pregnancy was anything out of the ordinary. When Jesus was scourged, he bled in an "ordinary" manner, wouldn't you say? Or, was His bleeding "supernatural" because it was Him?

So, I am asking you again: At which point did it become "natural" and where does it say so?

I have not seen you argue against my first answer yet. :) We are told that the Spirit came upon Mary and she conceived. This was supernatural because there was no sexual union involved. After the instantaneous event, the rest of it was "natural". I and Ignatius appear to agree that Mary carried Jesus for nine months in the usual and normal way, and then gave birth in the usual and normal way.

I still can't really put my arms around where you are coming from here. If you asked me if I thought that Jesus was subject to being the victim of a miscarriage I would say "no". If you think that would make the entire pregnancy "supernatural" then I could meet you there. However, neither you nor I nor anyone else ever born was subject to miscarriage either. All of us were born according to God's plan. I don't really consider that to be "supernatural" in the context of this discussion.

2,074 posted on 12/19/2006 1:47:02 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1591 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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