I won't, but I hate cats. The last one I had was so mean and evil, that when he died I left him outside under the tree for three days before burying him, caz I wanted to see if he was gonna come back to life :').
Becky
You stated that if Mary was the source of Jesus' humanity, that he woudl have to be female. That is, of course, to limit God in how He does His Miracles
. We have already established that this was not my intent, but say it had have been. What's the difference in me limiting God in how he does miracles by saying the above vs you limiting him by saying he had to make Jesus' physical body from Mary's? To me, since He did not tell us, to insist on either one is wrong.
Well, you were arguing (theoretically) that God could not make a man from the biological genes of a woman.
I am not limiting God to using Mary, I am only stating the "fact" that He did. He could certainly have used the genes of any human from history, but there is no evidence for that. The Scripture states that Mary will "convceive," which implies that at least her egg will be used.
But I could see if some other human was used, but like I said we have no evidence for this. There was once a poster here who believed that God took King David's sperm and used that to create Jesus in the womb. But his idea was not supported well by Scripture (to most of us anyway).
The point I am making, the one that I find many here guilty of not understanding is that Jesus had to be a human from the line of Adam. He had to be related to us. Not some new human that God made from scratch.
If Jesus was not related to us, then how did He redeem humanity? HE was the man-God who bridged the gap. But if He wasn't really a human like us, then how does He help us?
SD