This is the point. We do not know how God became Incarnate, but we do know that Mary was the actual biological mother of Jesus. That this is denied by folks was quite a shock to me.
Your's that her carefully nuanced questioing was a statement meant to question the purity of Mary.
Not the "purity" of Mary, but her maternity of Jesus. If Mary is not the actual mother of Jesus, we have vastly different conceptions of the event.
Yes, Cindy can try to straighten out what she intended.
SD
"Tradition" says that a child of Mary would have had to be female. I said with God all things are possible, and that I really didn't care how he made His SON.
I do tend to lean that His body was probably cloned from Mary too. I'm guessing though and you are also. Scripture doesn't tell us. But you know what? It wouldn't make any difference to me.
No offense intended but you are really being very disrespectful towards Mary here. You are telling her that if Jesus' physical body came from your body then I will worship and adore you and elevate you to a divine status but even though you carried him, birth him, and nutured him and loved Him , if you were just a surragate (isn't that the word you used?) then this changes everything.
. As I mentioned earlier, this may be exactly right, but you do not know this for a fact. It's a theory.