Hi
Mungo
Look I appreciate your diligence to your cause. But...
Lk 1:32
“He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David”.
If Christ was a brand new creation he could not have descended from David and therefore David could not be called his father and he would have no legitimate claim to the throne of David. God’s promise to David (
2Sam 7:16) would have been broken:
“And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.”
I'm sorry, and I've often admitted that I'm fairly dense in understanding, but how exactly does that piece of Scripture make the point that Jesus must have Mary's DNA? I'm also not getting this understanding you have that my position means that Christ was a 'brand new creation'. Jesus has existed since before the foundations of the earth were set in place. He makes the claim right out in public that he existed before Abraham. All I'm saying is that the human body that God made for Jesus likely didn't have any DNA connection with either of his earthly parents.
Gal 4:4
“But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law”
The Greek for ‘born’ here is gemenenon, Strong 1096:
“A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to
cause to be (“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to
become (
come into being),…”
The KJV translates it as
made.
Again this implies that Jesus body is generated (made) from Mary.
Here, even of your own admission, you believe that such a consequence is 'implied'. What if you're misunderstanding the 'implication'? What if it really only means what it says, that Jesus was born of a woman, born under the law. As I've already admitted, Jesus was born of a woman. Joseph was there and witnessed the baby being born of a woman, specifically, Mary. He was born as an Israelite, and so born under the law.
Rom 9:4-5
“They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.
Again, if Christ was a brand new creation he could not have been an Israelite
according to the flesh.
And that would be, because... uh, you say so?
Gen 22;18
“and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."
We are blessed through Christ. So he had to be a descendant of Abraham.
Again, this says that Jesus had Mary's DNA...where?
You see, friend, your proof isn't in the Scriptures, but rather in your asides that you believe to be 'implied' as your understanding. That doesn't make any of your position true.
Now, as I see it, you've been indoctrinated by the same group of people who believe that there's a purgatory, although there isn't a shred of Scripture to support that. That the church has the right to dissolve marriages that aren't in keeping with that particular brand of christianity. There's no Scriptural support for that idea. That we can somehow sway God's wrath on the dead loved ones who have gone before by prayers and alms giving. Again, nothing in the Scriptures to support that either.
So please, try to understand that when I hear a body of believers that promote such non-Scriptural ideas and understandings of God...I'm pretty much considering that such ideas from men to 'understand' the things of God, is pretty much just like the body of the Israelites were in Jesus' day. The ones that Jesus pretty soundly rebuked for their making God's law a law unto themselves.
I'm good with I don't know for certain 'how' Jesus' human body was created. At what point in the development of the embryo he may have been implanted in Mary's womb. But if all we've got to support such an idea are these references that you bring up, that even yourself claim only 'imply' such a thing, I'm not sure that the passages you mention actually make the point that you're claiming that they do.
I have no problem understanding that Jesus came to us through the house and the line of David based solely on his parent's both being of the house and line of David, and therefore, he is also. But that doesn't have to mean that he had any previous person's DNA in his embryonic makeup. You see, Jesus' birth is something that has never happened before. So, how we might 'figure it out' is based purely on what the Scriptures tell us about his human beginning.
God bless,
Ted
