- This topic has 1,478 replies, 55 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Not3,
Indeed. What does the Bible say?
Luk 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
Does it say “a spirit will be placed in your womb”? No, it was a conception, not incarnation. Not only that, what else did the angel tell Mary in Luke?
Luk 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,
This is again another indication of his full humanity, as the angels says that David is his father! Not literally of course, but most people know that lineage was important to Hebrew people.
People don't realize it, but when they pull out of scripture the idea that Yeshua was not conceived but incarnated, then they borrow from other pagan religions that speak of immortal beings taking on mortality for the sake of mankind.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 08 2007,18:44) I see the Preexistence thread is going strong…..so I wanted to *bump* this thread on Conception as a companion. It is my opinion that one subject gives light to the other.
Jesus is the unique combination between God's spirit and Mary. Therefore, “Jesus” the person, could not have preexisted his own conception/birth.
What was “with” God in the beginning was the word. Jesus is what the word became.
Everyone who believes in the preexistence of Jesus has to ask themselves this question: Do I believe in the *true* conception of Jesus? If so, then you must believe that whatever Jesus was in his preexistent state, was altered when Mary's 23 chromosomes were added to the Spirit's contribution.
God begets alone = Godlike (for there is only one God)
God begets with Mary = Divine Man (for Spirit and Man were fused in true conception)Otherwise, Jesus was not truly conceived. He was incarnated, as the Trinitarians believe (not at all receiving anything from Mary, merely using Mary as a surogate). Or he was reincarnated from one type of being (such as a spirit son) into another type of being (such as the one created with Mary's DNA added).
Father + Mother = Son
God + Mary = Jesus
not3What word? The Fathers Spoken Word?
So then the word which was God changed? It became flesh.
Or if it was the spoken word then it became flesh and changed?
So then the Father who is the “Word” became flesh. So then God the Father came in the flesh after all.
Lets see if we can read John 1:1 that way.
Jn 1:1
In the begining was the spoken word and the spoken word was with God and the spoken word was God.or
Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Father and the Father was with the Father and the Father was God.
WJ,
I know there is a thread dedicated to John 1:1, but briefly; the “word” mentioned there does not indicate that it is a spoken word OR an individual that was present with the LORD. So, what was it? I know we are told that Jesus' name is also the “Word” but it is not described that way clearly in John 1:1 ( a quick review of that thread will show us that this is the case ).At any rate, *something* was with God in the beginning………but how was this something “with” him? It is my feeling that because Jesus became God's Son, that is, Jesus was conceived and born, that the possibility of God's Son was “with” him. In other words, you carry the possibility of a son with you (presuming you have not undergone a vasectomy).
I know that I stand alone on this idea, but I believe God has shown me that Jesus is his LITERAL SON FROM HIS BODY. An heir. A legitimate Son.I've given this example before. This is what the LORD showed me at 3 a.m. one morning…..using my hubby (Dan) and my son (Nathan) as examples.
“In the beginning was Nathan, and Nathan was with Dan, and Nathan was Dan. Nathan was with Dan in the beginning.”
But surely Nathan did not *become* the son until Dan and I conceived him and gave him birth. We actually adopted our children as many of you know, but this senerio is used for ease of understanding.
Think about it before you dismiss it entirely.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 09 2007,19:44) WJ,
I know there is a thread dedicated to John 1:1, but briefly; the “word” mentioned there does not indicate that it is a spoken word OR an individual that was present with the LORD. So, what was it? I know we are told that Jesus' name is also the “Word” but it is not described that way clearly in John 1:1 ( a quick review of that thread will show us that this is the case ).At any rate, *something* was with God in the beginning………but how was this something “with” him? It is my feeling that because Jesus became God's Son, that is, Jesus was conceived and born, that the possibility of God's Son was “with” him. In other words, you carry the possibility of a son with you (presuming you have not undergone a vasectomy).
I know that I stand alone on this idea, but I believe God has shown me that Jesus is his LITERAL SON FROM HIS BODY. An heir. A legitimate Son.I've given this example before. This is what the LORD showed me at 3 a.m. one morning…..using my hubby (Dan) and my son (Nathan) as examples.
“In the beginning was Nathan, and Nathan was with Dan, and Nathan was Dan. Nathan was with Dan in the beginning.”
But surely Nathan did not *become* the son until Dan and I conceived him and gave him birth. We actually adopted our children as many of you know, but this senerio is used for ease of understanding.
Think about it before you dismiss it entirely.
I LIKE THAT! Well ” if ” God had NO literal Son before Jesus one thing is for sure HE has ONE NOW
God is a family. Hence the “new” creation.
Therefore “GOD” your GOD has annointed You..
So the family of God is two persons with the same Spirit.
Soon God will be all in all expanding HIS family…Amen
The Word (or thoughts) of God is sent to us to guide us when we receive Jesus.
Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
God bless,
Ken
BUMP
A true conception produces a new, unique individual who is the combination of both parents.
Who is willing to believe this about Jesus?
Who is willing to believe that Jesus is truly the Son of the Living God?
Matthew 1:20,21
….”Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy spirit.She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus….
Son of man and Son of God.
Because of the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world we too are God's children. BUT as yet we have no body. Therefore Jesus is the Only Son of the Father because He did not sin against the Father. Born under the law as we are but did not break the law which is sin.
We are under Adam's curse of his flesh. OUR flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. We are excused from our flesh that we might obtain a new body.
So then with my mind I serve the law of God but with my flesh the law of sin. Those who walk according to the flesh are NOT subject to the law of God indeed never can be. Our spirit and soul are saved but our flesh is condemned.
Son of man~flesh~Son of God~SPIRIT~ The first of the new creation, the second Adam.
Instead of creating the second Adam from the ground of the earth. The Father created Jesus from the ground of Mary. Surely if God can create man from mud He can create man from flesh.
God bless,
Ken
Quote (kenrch @ Oct. 11 2007,21:58) The first of the new creation
Amen!FROM HIS BIRTH he is the “first of the new creation.”
Jesus never had to be born again. I know that Nick believes that Jesus was indeed, born again from the Jordan; however, I do not agree.
JTB baptism was a shadow of the forgiveness of sins found in our Lord Jesus. John knew that when Jesus was promoted to ministry, that his own ministry would decrease so that Christ's ministry could increase! Jesus baptized noone in the Jordan; Jesus baptized with holy Spirit.
I offer that we are not new creations when we are baptized, instead, we received our “new creation” status after Christ was resurrected and bore our sin on the cross.
2 Corninthians Chapter 5
verse 21
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might *become* the righteousness of God.This scripture leads me to believe that the righteousness we have in God did not come through baptism. Therefore, Jesus was/is the firstfruits of the new creation; he died, and in so doing, brought us to life. A new life. A new creation (like himself).
With that said, we are not yet adopted, but the Father has given us a “guarantee” that we are his. A “deposit” was given that we will be claimed as sons and daughter's in the future (after resurrection).
Ephesians 1:13, 14
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised holy Spirit,
Which is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession – to the praise of his glory.
This is a bit off the topic of conception, however it is relative. Jesus was conceived and born a new creation. We have a deposit put down on us until we become the new creation.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 09 2007,19:44) WJ,
I know there is a thread dedicated to John 1:1, but briefly; the “word” mentioned there does not indicate that it is a spoken word OR an individual that was present with the LORD. So, what was it? I know we are told that Jesus' name is also the “Word” but it is not described that way clearly in John 1:1 ( a quick review of that thread will show us that this is the case ).At any rate, *something* was with God in the beginning………but how was this something “with” him? It is my feeling that because Jesus became God's Son, that is, Jesus was conceived and born, that the possibility of God's Son was “with” him. In other words, you carry the possibility of a son with you (presuming you have not undergone a vasectomy).
I know that I stand alone on this idea, but I believe God has shown me that Jesus is his LITERAL SON FROM HIS BODY. An heir. A legitimate Son.I've given this example before. This is what the LORD showed me at 3 a.m. one morning…..using my hubby (Dan) and my son (Nathan) as examples.
“In the beginning was Nathan, and Nathan was with Dan, and Nathan was Dan. Nathan was with Dan in the beginning.”
But surely Nathan did not *become* the son until Dan and I conceived him and gave him birth. We actually adopted our children as many of you know, but this senerio is used for ease of understanding.
Think about it before you dismiss it entirely.
not3Sorry! I dont see that at all in John 1:1.
John throughout the first chapter shows who the “Word was”.
Its a huge stretch to say that your son existed in your husband before he was born.
What if you and your husband would not have met?
So you see you would have to say…
In the begining was Nathan and Nathan was with Dan/Mandy and Nathan was Dan/Mandy.
The problem is Nathan had no existence untill Dan and Mandy came together.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 12 2007,11:37) Its a huge stretch to say that your son existed in your husband before he was born.
Is it a stretch? I don't think that it is, look what I found: Levi was in the body of his ancestor before he was born.Hebrews 7:9
One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.I appreciate your input WJ. Thoughts on this, please – anyone?
I guess the “New Posts” are wiped clean at a certain time and I must always choose that time to *bump* this topic! Ha! So, I'm bumping it AGAIN.
In fact, David, I'll be answering your questions regarding conception HERE instead of in the Preexistence thread. I'll leave a note for you there so you can find me. Thanks.
I thought it might be nice to include this medical information on conception. It is taken from a well-respected medical site on the web. It gives a point of reference for those wondering what the true conception process is.
Here's a primer on conception:
Ovulation: Each month, in one of a woman's two ovaries, a group of immature eggs start to develop in small fluid-filled cysts called follicles. Normally, one of the follicles is selected to complete development (maturation). This “dominant follicle” suppresses the growth of all of the other follicles, which stop growing and degenerate. The mature follicle ruptures and releases the egg from the ovary (ovulation). Ovulation generally occurs about two weeks before a woman's next menstrual period begins.
Development of Corpus Luteum: After ovulation, the ruptured follicle develops into a structure called the corpus luteum, which secretes two hormones, progesterone and estrogen. The progesterone helps prepare the endometrium (lining of the uterus) for the embryo to implant by thickening it.
Release of Egg: The egg is released and travels into the fallopian tube where it remains until a single sperm penetrates it during fertilization (the union of egg and sperm; see below). The egg can be fertilized for about 24 hours after ovulation. On average, ovulation and fertilization occurs about two weeks after your last menstrual period.
Menses: If no sperm is around to fertilize the egg, it and the corpus luteum will degenerate, removing the high level of hormones. This causes the endometrium to slough off, resulting in menstrual bleeding. Then the cycle repeats itself.
Fertilization: If sperm does meet and penetrate a mature egg after ovulation, it will fertilize it. When the sperm penetrates the egg, changes occur in the protein coating around it to prevent other sperm from entering. At the moment of fertilization, your baby's genetic make-up is complete, including its sex. Since the mother can provide only X chromosomes (she's XX), if a Y sperm fertilizes the egg, your baby will be a boy (XY); if an X sperm fertilizes the egg, your baby will be a girl (XX).
Implantation: Within 24-hours after fertilization, the egg begins dividing rapidly into many cells. It remains in the fallopian tube for about three days. The fertilized egg (called a zygote) continues to divide as it passes slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus where its next job is to attach to the endometrium (a process called implantation). First the zygote becomes a solid ball of cells, then it becomes a hollow ball of cells called a blastocyst. Before implantation, the blastocyst breaks out of its protective covering. When the blastocyst establishes contact with the endometrium, an exchange of hormones helps the blastocyst attach. Some women notice spotting (or slight bleeding) for one or two days around the time of implantation. The endometrium becomes thicker and the cervix is sealed by a plug of mucus.
Within three weeks, the blastocyst cells begin to grow as clumps of cells within that little ball, and the baby's first nerve cells have already formed. Your developing baby is called an embryo from the moment of conception to the eighth week of pregnancy. After the eighth week and until the moment of birth, your developing baby is called a fetus.
Pregnancy Hormones: Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG) is a hormone present in your blood from the time of conception and is produced by the cells that form the placenta. This is the hormone detected in a pregnancy test; but, it usually takes three to four weeks from the first day of your last period for the levels of hCG to be high enough to be detected by pregnancy tests.
The development stages of pregnancy are called trimesters, or three-month periods, because of the distinct changes that occur in each stage.
Not3,
Now you truly know that Mary was merely a warm body that carried the incarnate angel or god. She was a human incubator! What suffering do you think was worse, being trapped in the womb for 9 months eating through a tube in his belly or dying on the cross?
Well bumped Not3in1!
You know what I'm going to say so let's get it over with.
If anyone knows for a fact where Jesus' remaining unaccounted-for 23 chromosomes come from then speak up, otherwise the whole thread pretty much is sophistry of the most tedious kind. It is utter delusion to try and worm around this physical question with talk of spirits and scripture when we know exactly how meiosis gives rise to a shuffling of genes and production of a new genome that is a recipe for a new human, and we know that all humans have two biological parents.
It seems to me that everyone contributing to the discussion has a very different idea about the immaterial aspects of it – suggesting very strongly that there actually is nothing in humans that cannot in principle be explained entirely by biochemistry. Neuroscience has not yet found anything “spiritual” about human beings that is not entirely located within the brain, nor anything that cannot be explained by its contents.
If you think something “special” happened, then as they unkindly say, you should put up or shut up. Put up the evidence for it. Put up even a plausible mechanism for it. Don't use the live “virgin” births of various other species as a possibility – that doesn't work in humans.
May I suggest that murder of the subject of biology for the sake of making mythology into into reality will not advance anyone's argument. May I add that human virgin birth is a myth. That is, it hasn't happened, and that in the case of the christian virgin birth myth, Jesus's biological father is actually Joseph (if either of them existed at all), and that all other magical qualities attributed to Jesus have been invented by the church.
Stuart
David wrote:
What is normal about God's Son being born a human?
********************************************************For God to have a human son would not be normal. For a “God” to have a “human” son – that just doesn't jive.
However, for a “God” to have conceived with a “Human” and had a “Divine” son – that does seem normal (per se).
God begets God
Man begets ManGod + Man = Divine Man
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 13 2007,16:28) If anyone knows for a fact where Jesus' remaining unaccounted-for 23 chromosomes come from then speak up, otherwise the whole thread pretty much is sophistry of the most tedious kind.
Well of course they came from our heavenly Father – duh Stu!Hey Stu, how are ya? You are so well spoken I enjoy reading all your posts. Most of our threads are tedious work as you have noticed, but we are all working out the answers to our questions. The reason why the majority of us are here is because we want to look in this direction for our answers. If we wanted to, for instance, look to science, we would be doing that at another site.
So, if you are looking for posts/people/beliefs to mock, you'll find a lot of material here. Just remember that we are here (on a Christian site) because we are Christians and speak from that viewpoint; that is, a viewpoint based on FAITH. You know what the definition of faith is, and so that will help you understand where we are coming from. We believe in things not seen……..like virgin births.
Hi Not3in1
You posted a detailed description of reproductive biology, so I assume you think science is relevant to the issue. Birth by one parent is not possible in humans. So we have to add some kind of magic at this point, if we are to keep up a pretence in the reality of a virgin birth myth for Jesus.
So your “Well of course they came from our heavenly Father” is no explanation at all. At this point we inject magic, and the whole explanation becomes like Harry Potter.
You are not only christian, but funadamentalist – you believe things to be literally true that other christians consider to be historical fable, for example the existence of Adam and Eve, which is not supported by fossil evidence and is therefore rejected by many devout christians.
So the rule of thumb seems to be, accept science when it matches the bible, substitute magic when there is a contradiction. Is this unfair?
Stuart
Quote For a “God” to have a “human” son – that just doesn't jive. –Mandy.
Is not adam called the son of God?
Quote Now…..who is willing to say that Jesus was truly conceived? –Mandy
Mandy, I'm really not sure where you're going with this word “conception.”
Those who translated the Bible from the original language use that word “conceive.”
You go and give a scientific definition of what that English word means. Maybe we should go look at the actual word that was translated as “conceive.”Still, I am not sure what you are saying here. You list all this stuff and then ask: who is willing to say Jesus was truly conceived? Are you saying the Bible translation of that word “conceive” is wrong? What are you saying?
Earlier, I had been talking with you about how I believe Jesus is fully 100% human, how he was, as the Bible says “made flesh” and how you believe it's impossible for Jehovah to make a pre-existent Jesus into a true human.
How would you say this is connected to your idea about conception?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
