Conception

[malcolm ferris]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 12 2006,21:53)

Hi, Scripture seems to state that Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary. Many here are convinced instead a newly created conceptus was placed in the womb of Mary. It matters in that if the second option was true; Mary was not his true biological mother He had no human genetic material from Adam. We have to ask in what ways he was truly like to us. Lk 1.31 “And behold you will conceive in your womb..” Lk 2.21 “..his name was then callled Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb..” Lk 1.36 “..Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age..” There are a variety of words translated as “conceive”and the word used [4815 Sullambano ]has a variety of other meanings. But in these verses above the same word is used. It would seem then that the same biological process occurred in Elizabeth as occurred in Mary. Who will say Elizabeth did not conceive?

The word conceive means to become pregnant, if a woman is impregnated in-vitro conception follows by this definition. This same word that is translated “conceive” is also translated and used to mean “take”, “caught” and “help” in other places in the new testament. She took the seed of God and bore it in her womb. That womb protected the growing child and provided all of the nutrients required for this process of growth.

If Jesus were conceived by the means of a union of both the male genetic material of God (sperm) and the female (egg) of Mary then you have God committing an act of sexual procreation. Any such union under the Law of God's own authoring, made the two involved in such an act to be “one flesh”.

GENESIS 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

I CORINTHIANS 6:16
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Clearly the purpose of a man and woman forming a union in marriage is to have a family. So the union of marriage makes two in flesh to be one flesh – or one lineage of flesh, for we derive our fleshly lineage in this fashion.
Hence the words of the woman at the well and Jesus' response to them…

JOHN 4:16-18
Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

For God to create a blood cell to produce His son in this fashion would be to make Himself the husband of Mary, a ridiculous notion. To have God bound to such requirements is foolish, He is the Creator, He is well able to create children out of stones! What is a stone but a collection of chemical and mineral elements? If God could make the world from nothing, by His Word, if He can make children from stones – (and the scripture says He could do it) Then why is it we insist that when it comes to producing the second Adam, He is now bound to our concept of how it must be done?
As I have said before, science today proves it is possible! in-vitro fertilization is a reality! That is to say that we can meddle in God's natural process of procreation and get it to work, yet God is not able to?…
Now no matter how hard one can argue that by some new and as before unheard of means He was able to fuse His seed, divine nature or whatever with the nature of the woman, to create a being who had both the nature of God and human nature. What you are describing is something supposedly done once and never again, therefore not provable, and subject to your own convictions that; this is how it surely must have been done.
For some reason it is abhorrent to many to think that Mary was in effect little more than the womb that bore the Son of God, the womb through which that creation derived nutrients to form a body…
Yet to these same people it is not abhorrent to consider God mixing His life by a sperm with human life through Mary by an egg. Nor does it seem to matter to them that she is a product of fallen creation, which was separated from the God by sin in the garden. How on earth can Jesus be born sinless if a part of his intrinsic makeup is from the contribution of a mother who was born in sin?

PSALMS 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Mary was born in sin like the rest of us, she needed the rebirth like the rest of the disciples did she not?

Of course the argument comes back, but it was the Spirit of God coming into the egg of the virgin, so it was not a physical act, not a physical union.
If you are to have a regular human being like us in every way then it takes both sperm and egg to produce this. If the sperm is taken out of the equation you have something irregular.
So you allow that God therefore did something irregular, yet He could not have gone the next step and created a completed cell in the womb of the virgin – ensuring therefore that His son was Holy and without sin.
Also to address the whole spiritual union idea, then Mary would be the original Bride of Christ, and this was possible before the atonement for sin had been given?

[truebelief4u]

Well, dumbo me had to go and look up “conceive.” Arrrrggggghhhhh!!!!

The New Testament Greek Lexicon

Found 8 entries matching: conceive English Translation Original Word Transliterated Word
1080 conceived gennavw gennao
2192 conceived* e[cw echo
2602 conceive* katabolhv katabole
2845 conceived* koivth koite
4690 conceive* spevrma sperma
4815 conceive sullambavnw sullambano
4815 conceived sullambavnw sullambano
5087 conceived tivqhmi tithemi

Also: http://www.studylight.org/lex….rch.y=6

And, naturally, since Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, I had to go there as well:
The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

Found 8 entries matching: conceive English Translation Original Word Transliterated Word
02029 conceive hrh harah
02029 conceived hrh harah
02029 conceives hrh harah
02030 conceive hrh hareh
02032 conceive !wrh herown
02232 conceive [rz zara`
02664 well-conceived Xpx chaphas
03179 conceived ~xy yacham

WHICH definition it would be correct to use? Beats me…some texts have DIFFERENT Hebrew/Greek words!! So now what??? Anybody got any idea WHICH is actually the correct word? [Normally I would go to the Syriac and check, but that doesn't apply here as we're dealing specifically with the actual Greek or Hebrew word, whatever it was, not the Syriac translation.]

[NickHassan]

Quote (malcolm ferris @ April 23 2006,01:44)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 12 2006,21:53) Hi, Scripture seems to state that Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary. Many here are convinced instead a newly created conceptus was placed in the womb of Mary. It matters in that if the second option was true; Mary was not his true biological mother He had no human genetic material from Adam. We have to ask in what ways he was truly like to us. Lk 1.31 “And behold you will conceive in your womb..” Lk 2.21 “..his name was then callled Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb..” Lk 1.36 “..Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age..” There are a variety of words translated as “conceive”and the word used [4815 Sullambano ]has a variety of other meanings. But in these verses above the same word is used. It would seem then that the same biological process occurred in Elizabeth as occurred in Mary. Who will say Elizabeth did not conceive? The word conceive means to become pregnant, if a woman is impregnated in-vitro conception follows by this definition. This same word that is translated “conceive” is also translated and used to mean “take”, “caught” and “help” in other places in the new testament. She took the seed of God and bore it in her womb. That womb protected the growing child and provided all of the nutrients required for this process of growth. If Jesus were conceived by the means of a union of both the male genetic material of God (sperm) and the female (egg) of Mary then you have God committing an act of sexual procreation. Any such union under the Law of God's own authoring, made the two involved in such an act to be “one flesh”. GENESIS 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. I CORINTHIANS 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. Clearly the purpose of a man and woman forming a union in marriage is to have a family. So the union of marriage makes two in flesh to be one flesh – or one lineage of flesh, for we derive our fleshly lineage in this fashion. Hence the words of the woman at the well and Jesus' response to them… JOHN 4:16-18 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. For God to create a blood cell to produce His son in this fashion would be to make Himself the husband of Mary, a ridiculous notion. To have God bound to such requirements is foolish, He is the Creator, He is well able to create children out of stones! What is a stone but a collection of chemical and mineral elements? If God could make the world from nothing, by His Word, if He can make children from stones – (and the scripture says He could do it) Then why is it we insist that when it comes to producing the second Adam, He is now bound to our concept of how it must be done? As I have said before, science today proves it is possible! in-vitro fertilization is a reality! That is to say that we can meddle in God's natural process of procreation and get it to work, yet God is not able to?… Now no matter how hard one can argue that by some new and as before unheard of means He was able to fuse His seed, divine nature or whatever with the nature of the woman, to create a being who had both the nature of God and human nature. What you are describing is something supposedly done once and never again, therefore not provable, and subject to your own convictions that; this is how it surely must have been done. For some reason it is abhorrent to many to think that Mary was in effect little more than the womb that bore the Son of God, the womb through which that creation derived nutrients to form a body… Yet to these same people it is not abhorrent to consider God mixing His life by a sperm with human life through Mary by an egg. Nor does it seem to matter to them that she is a product of fallen creation, which was separated from the God by sin in the garden. How on earth can Jesus be born sinless if a part of his intrinsic makeup is from the contribution of a mother who   was born in sin? PSALMS 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Mary was born in sin like the rest of us, she needed the rebirth like the rest of the disciples did she not? Of course the argument comes back, but it was the Spirit of God coming into the egg of the virgin, so it was not a physical act, not a physical union. If you are to have a regular human being like us in every way then it takes both sperm and egg to produce this. If the sperm is taken out of the equation you have something irregular. So you allow that God therefore did something irregular, yet He could not have gone the next step and created a completed cell in the womb of the virgin – ensuring therefore that His son was Holy and without sin. Also to address the whole spiritual union idea, then Mary would be the original Bride of Christ, and this was possible before the atonement for sin had been given?

Hi Malcolm,
There is no biblical event to compare with the conception of Jesus. What you have cited are sexual unions resulting in conception and not similar to what happened with Mary. There were no other forms of conception described in the bible that do not involve sexual activity but this did.

Why is it you do not find abhorrent the placing of a conceptus in the womb of Mary but do find abhorrent the placing of a sperm cell in the womb? Is there any real difference if normal sexual activity is not involved?

Mary was still a virgin and had had no sexual relations. God cannot be accused of sin according to any laws because of how He chooses to do his works surely?

[NickHassan]

Hi Malcolm,
Did Elizabeth conceive John?

I would rather know that the one I was following fully tasted my fallen nature…and was victorious over it…than believing he always had a head start.

Must we say God was too worried about him failing not to let him have advantages?

I say Jesus is more glorious because he overcame, just as we must be overcomers.

[WhatIsTrue]

Nick,

While you wait for malcolm ferris to answer your questions, I would be interested to see you answer the questions put to you on page 8 of this discussion.

[truebelief4u]

Quote (malcolm ferris @ April 23 2006,07:30)

Quote (Woutlaw @ April 17 2006,18:24) A name represents a person, the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ according to Acts 2:38? Malcolm, If you're trying to make a connection between Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 I have a serious disagreement with you. Oneness people do this to try to prove that Jesus is The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19 is another example of tampering of scripture, along with 1 John 5:7. There is a lot of documentation on the web that address this issue. But I don't need to use that documentation to prove that Matthew 28:19 has been altered. In Matthew 28:18, Jesus said, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth . I believe that all authority has indeed been given to the Son. If the Son has all authority, then why in the world would we baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? If the Son has all authority, then to baptize in his name would suffice. What is in a name? If my father's name was Malcolm Ferris which is also my name, then It would be my Father's name as well as mine. Now if my father were the president of the USA then the name of my father and his son (me) and the president of the USA would be Malcolm Ferris… That would not make me my Father, nor would it make my father me! If my father was to authorize me to go and speak to a bunch of people on his behalf then I would be going in the name of my father to do so. So yes you are speaking of authority, representation and expression. A name designates an individual, it can show their lineage, surname, it identifies a particular person of that genealogical line. A name has a meaning normally also. The name Jesus means Jehovah is Savior. The name Christ means Anointed. Also regarding Matt 28:19 and Acts 2:38 – I don't care if the Oneness people try to use these to prove their error, it does not disqualify the verses. Trinitarians use many scriptures also, but we do not need to argue that the scriptures do not belong there. A correct understanding of how those scriptures apply and what they actually means gives harmony to the entire Word of God. He is well able to protect His Word from human corruption, even as He preserved the scrolls that survived the history of Israel to become the Word of God in common use when Jesus the Messiah arrived on the scene. Jesus did not need to argue the validity of verses, no he merely gave them the correct interpretation. Heavens and earth shall pass away but the Word of the Lord endures forever. So I would prefer to address the scriptures that exist and look at their correct interpretation. In Matthew 28:19 we are told to baptize in the NAME (not names) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Now for a start the Father and the Holy Spirit are the same Spirit – namely God the Father. Father however is not a name – it is a title. Or office Holy Spirit is not a name – it is a title or office. Son is not a name – it is a title or office. We also know for a fact that the Father and the Son are not the same person, even if they both have the same name! So in Acts 2:38 when Peter, (the one to whom Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom) stood up and addressed the people, he did not disobey the words of Jesus in Matt 28:19 – he told them what that ONE NAME is, and this is the same name of which the entire family of God in Heaven and on earth are named.

Malcom……as Woutlaw has pointed out, you are using verses that have no place in authentic Scripture:  Matthew 28:19 is known to be a deliberate alteration of the original text (and admitted as such by the Pope no less):
See: http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/mt2819.htm
And: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1461121/posts
http://www.godglorified.com/kosmala.htm
http://72.14.203.104/search?….nk&cd=1

[NickHassan]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 21 2006,18:37)

Nick wrote: Quote The alternative seems to be to say the God is not the father of Jesus Christ[broken scripture]… Scripture is not broken here.  On the contrary, (as Ramblinrose points out), 1 Chronicles 28:6 shows how YHWH is Yashua's father: “…I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.” Solomon is the archetype.  Yashua is the ultimate fulfillment. Scripture is fulfilled. Nick wrote: Quote …that the term “Son of God” is only a meaningless label [broken scripture]… Scripture is not broken here either.  Again, 1 Chronicles 28:6 shows how Yashua is YHWH's unique son. Scripture is fulfilled. Nick wrote: Quote …and that Mary was not a virgin[broken scripture]. Nor is scripture broken here.  Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in Isaiah's day through natural conception.  (See Isaiah 8:3-4.)  A “virgin” conceived.  (i.e.  One who had never had sexual relations with a man before conceived on the very first act of intercourse – a miracle by all accounts!)  The same applies to Messiah's fulfillment of this prophecy. Scripture is fulfilled. Nick, you have a lot of interesting opinions, but I still don't see any scriptural proof. Search the scriptures, Nick.  Whose literal son was Messiah prohesied to be?  YHWH's or David's?  You have been shown mountains of evidence that he had to be David's literal son, “the fruit of his body”.  Where is your evidence that he had to YHWH's literal son, and not YHWH's son by adoption? Romans 1:1-4 Quote Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

Hi WIT,
You prefer the natural sonship by men that that Jesus was who he said he was -the Son of God. The real son of God.

He never claimed to be the son of Joseph
Or even the Son of David,
Or even the Son of Abraham.

He did say he was the Son of God

So did God say he was His son

So did Peter and John and Paul and John the baptist etc.

Why would you reject and not prefer their testimony?
Why would you only make him the son of God by declaration  when God said “Today I have begotten You”?

He was son of God before all these existed and he was son of Mary and all of them at least by adoption.

[WhatIsTrue]

Nick,

You continue to give me your personal opinions, without any basis in scripture.  You are dodging the question.  Here it is again:

Quote

Search the scriptures, Nick.  Whose literal son was Messiah prohesied to be?  YHWH's or David's?  You have been shown mountains of evidence that he had to be David's literal son, “the fruit of his body” (Acts 2:29-30).  Where is your evidence that he had to YHWH's literal son, and not YHWH's son by adoption?

I would appreciate a straight answer.  Thank you.

[NickHassan]

Hi WIT,
Jesus is the literal Son of God.
Before all else he was begotten of God and declared to be the Son of God. And he was also called the Son of God because the Holy Spirit came upon Mary who was overshadowed by the power of the Most High[Lk 1.35]
He was declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead as shown in Rom 1.4 fulfilling scripture as shown in Acts 2.22-32.
Human geneology does not compare with the claims God made about him.
Would you argue with God that Jesus was not truly His Son?
That is brave I must say.

[truebelief4u]

Quote (Ramblinrose @ April 13 2006,19:32)

Maybe it would be best to refer people to the following article in answer to this topic. Virgin Birth – True or False – Fact or Fiction YHWH Bless

Good link…..very interesting!

[WhatIsTrue]

Nick,

You are still dodging.

Nick wrote:

Quote

Would you argue with God that Jesus was not truly His Son? That is brave I must say.

That is slander at its worst Nick.  Where have I ever said that Yashua was not the Son of YHWH?

The prophets gave us a picture ahead of time of who the Messiah would be.  If a person did not fulfill these prophecies, he could not be the Messiah, according to the scriptures.  He would be a false Messiah – one that did not agree with the Law and the Prophets.

So, again, I beg you to answer the question:

Who did the prophets say Messiah would be the literal son of David or YHWH?

[NickHassan]

Hi WIT,
As you know Christ was the secret hidden from men till he partook of flesh and was revealed as the Son of God..
Scripture rarely called him the Son of God before he was sent into the world. But it did in Psalm 2, Ps 8 and Prov 30.

Jesus said John was greater than all the prophets did he not?

What did he have to say?
Jn 1.34
“And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God”
Would you contradict him and say
“Not so. He was only a son of God by title or declaration”?
and he said
“After me comes a man who has a higher rank than I, for he existed before me”

I believe Him as a witness before any living man. Do you?

[malcolm ferris]

JOHN 8:23
And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Now who and what and where was he of? this world?, David?, God?

[NickHassan]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 26 2006,23:08)

Nick, You are still dodging. Nick wrote: Quote Would you argue with God that Jesus was not truly His Son? That is brave I must say. That is slander at its worst Nick.  Where have I ever said that Yashua was not the Son of YHWH? The prophets gave us a picture ahead of time of who the Messiah would be.  If a person did not fulfill these prophecies, he could not be the Messiah, according to the scriptures.  He would be a false Messiah – one that did not agree with the Law and the Prophets. So, again, I beg you to answer the question: Who did the prophets say Messiah would be the literal son of David or YHWH?

Hi WIT,
Who is the father of Jesus Christ?

[WhatIsTrue]

Nick wrote:

Quote

As you know Christ was the secret hidden from men till he partook of flesh and was revealed as the Son of God..

Actually, I don't know that, because that is not what I believe scripture teaches.  The scriptures that I have read prophecy about the Messiah, in detail, (including that he must suffer), and says that he will be the son of David, (2 Samuel 7:12), and that he will be chosen to be the Son of YHWH, (2 Samuel 7:14).

Perhaps, we read different scriptures.

Nick wrote:

Quote

Jesus said John was greater than all the prophets did he not?

But, he did not say that John was to contradict the prophets, did he?

Nick wrote:

Quote

What did he have to say? Jn 1.34 “And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God” Would you contradict him and say “Not so. He was only a son of God by title or declaration”?

That is called circular reasoning Nick.  You have already assumed that John means “literal son”, (i.e. “of the same substance”), when he uses the term “Son of God”, and then you show him using that term and claim it as proof.  Take a good look at the following verse from the gospel of John:

1:49:

Quote

Nathanael answered and said to Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

Is the term “Son of God” being used as a title here?  It would appear so, just as it was used of King Solomon in 1 Chronicles 28:6-7.

So, I ask you again Nick:

Did the prophets get it right or wrong?  Was Messiah supposed to be the literal son of David or not?  (This is fourth time that I am asking this question!)

Nick wrote:

Quote

and he said “After me comes a man who has a higher rank than I, for he existed before me”

Now we are getting off topic.  This is about conception not pre-existense.  We have already had this discussion elsewhere.  But, if you wish to repeat it, bring it up in the appropriate forum, and I will respond.

[WhatIsTrue]

Nick wrote:

Quote

Hi WIT, Who is the father of Jesus Christ?

Romans 1:1-4

Quote

Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

Yashua is the unique son of YHWH, chosen by Him to judge the world.  He is the first and last of his kind, as there will never be another son of YHWH equal to him in stature.  But, by birth, (i.e. according to the flesh), he is David's son, through his father Joseph.

[WhatIsTrue]

Maclom wrote:

Quote

JOHN 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. Now who and what and where was he of? this world?, David?, God?

Malcolm,

Were the people that Messiah was talking to literally from beneath?

(Read John 6:41-59.  In the gospel of John, I believe that Messiah speaks metaphorically throughout, even though his words may seem literal.  I also believe that many misintepretations have resulted from this, including the Catholic practice of “eating God”.)

[NickHassan]

Hi WIT,
So by declared you understand it as “proven to be the Son of God” as I do by his resurrection,
or do you take the view that he only “became” the Son of God at that time?

[NickHassan]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 27 2006,03:43)

Nick wrote: Quote As you know Christ was the secret hidden from men till he partook of flesh and was revealed as the Son of God.. Actually, I don't know that, because that is not what I believe scripture teaches.  The scriptures that I have read prophecy about the Messiah, in detail, (including that he must suffer), and says that he will be the son of David, (2 Samuel 7:12), and that he will be chosen to be the Son of YHWH, (2 Samuel 7:14). Perhaps, we read different scriptures. Nick wrote: Quote Jesus said John was greater than all the prophets did he not? But, he did not say that John was to contradict the prophets, did he? Nick wrote: Quote What did he have to say? Jn 1.34 “And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God” Would you contradict him and say “Not so. He was only a son of God by title or declaration”? That is called circular reasoning Nick.  You have already assumed that John means “literal son”, (i.e. “of the same substance”), when he uses the term “Son of God”, and then you show him using that term and claim it as proof.  Take a good look at the following verse from the gospel of John: 1:49: Quote Nathanael answered and said to Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” Is the term “Son of God” being used as a title here?  It would appear so, just as it was used of King Solomon in 1 Chronicles 28:6-7. So, I ask you again Nick: Did the prophets get it right or wrong?  Was Messiah supposed to be the literal son of David or not?  (This is fourth time that I am asking this question!) Nick wrote: Quote and he said “After me comes a man who has a higher rank than I, for he existed before me” Now we are getting off topic.  This is about conception not pre-existense.  We have already had this discussion elsewhere.  But, if you wish to repeat it, bring it up in the appropriate forum, and I will respond.

Hi WIT,
You assume too much. Surely Nathaniel said what he believed -that Jesus is THE son of God.

We do not have the right to allegorise or assume to be a title what is simple and true-but we cannot accept at face value.

The Jews did not doubt Jesus was the son of David. Do you have doubts Jesus is the messiah because you cannot see him first as a son of God before he even became a son of Man?

If not then why deny that Jesus is TRULY the Son of God?

[malcolm ferris]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 26 2006,04:39)

Quote (malcolm ferris @ April 23 2006,01:44) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 12 2006,21:53) Hi, Scripture seems to state that Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary. Many here are convinced instead a newly created conceptus was placed in the womb of Mary. It matters in that if the second option was true; Mary was not his true biological mother He had no human genetic material from Adam. We have to ask in what ways he was truly like to us. Lk 1.31 “And behold you will conceive in your womb..” Lk 2.21 “..his name was then callled Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb..” Lk 1.36 “..Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age..” There are a variety of words translated as “conceive”and the word used [4815 Sullambano ]has a variety of other meanings. But in these verses above the same word is used. It would seem then that the same biological process occurred in Elizabeth as occurred in Mary. Who will say Elizabeth did not conceive? The word conceive means to become pregnant, if a woman is impregnated in-vitro conception follows by this definition. This same word that is translated “conceive” is also translated and used to mean “take”, “caught” and “help” in other places in the new testament. She took the seed of God and bore it in her womb. That womb protected the growing child and provided all of the nutrients required for this process of growth. If Jesus were conceived by the means of a union of both the male genetic material of God (sperm) and the female (egg) of Mary then you have God committing an act of sexual procreation. Any such union under the Law of God's own authoring, made the two involved in such an act to be “one flesh”. GENESIS 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. I CORINTHIANS 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. Clearly the purpose of a man and woman forming a union in marriage is to have a family. So the union of marriage makes two in flesh to be one flesh – or one lineage of flesh, for we derive our fleshly lineage in this fashion. Hence the words of the woman at the well and Jesus' response to them… JOHN 4:16-18 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. For God to create a blood cell to produce His son in this fashion would be to make Himself the husband of Mary, a ridiculous notion. To have God bound to such requirements is foolish, He is the Creator, He is well able to create children out of stones! What is a stone but a collection of chemical and mineral elements? If God could make the world from nothing, by His Word, if He can make children from stones – (and the scripture says He could do it) Then why is it we insist that when it comes to producing the second Adam, He is now bound to our concept of how it must be done? As I have said before, science today proves it is possible! in-vitro fertilization is a reality! That is to say that we can meddle in God's natural process of procreation and get it to work, yet God is not able to?… Now no matter how hard one can argue that by some new and as before unheard of means He was able to fuse His seed, divine nature or whatever with the nature of the woman, to create a being who had both the nature of God and human nature. What you are describing is something supposedly done once and never again, therefore not provable, and subject to your own convictions that; this is how it surely must have been done. For some reason it is abhorrent to many to think that Mary was in effect little more than the womb that bore the Son of God, the womb through which that creation derived nutrients to form a body… Yet to these same people it is not abhorrent to consider God mixing His life by a sperm with human life through Mary by an egg. Nor does it seem to matter to them that she is a product of fallen creation, which was separated from the God by sin in the garden. How on earth can Jesus be born sinless if a part of his intrinsic makeup is from the contribution of a mother who was born in sin? PSALMS 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Mary was born in sin like the rest of us, she needed the rebirth like the rest of the disciples did she not? Of course the argument comes back, but it was the Spirit of God coming into the egg of the virgin, so it was not a physical act, not a physical union. If you are to have a regular human being like us in every way then it takes both sperm and egg to produce this. If the sperm is taken out of the equation you have something irregular. So you allow that God therefore did something irregular, yet He could not have gone the next step and created a completed cell in the womb of the virgin – ensuring therefore that His son was Holy and without sin. Also to address the whole spiritual union idea, then Mary would be the original Bride of Christ, and this was possible before the atonement for sin had been given? Hi Malcolm, There is no biblical event to compare with the conception of Jesus. What you have cited are sexual unions resulting in conception and not similar to what happened with Mary. There were no other forms of conception described in the bible that do not involve sexual activity but this did. Why is it you do not find abhorrent the placing of a conceptus in the womb of Mary but do find abhorrent the placing of a sperm cell in the womb? Is there any real difference if normal sexual activity is not involved? Mary was still a virgin and had had no sexual relations. God cannot be accused of sin according to any laws because of how He chooses to do his works surely?

I PETER 1:23
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

How was Jesus concieved? Did the Word have anything to do with it? Was he not the Word spoken into the womb of the virgin by the power of God?

This rebirth that we have is a rebirth of the soul. Which has to be a soul that came originally from God, in order to be a seed son of God. I do not see anything of the flesh involved in this rebirth, on the contrary it is completely separate from and therefore alien to the flesh.

Jesus' soul came from God, as such was never in sin, was placed in a cell in the womb of the virgin to bring forth a body without sin, and upon birth received the breath of life from God, not the spirit of this world, unlike us.

EPHESIANS 2:1
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Jesus never was dead in trespasses and sins, like us, who came to earth in this condition and
without choosing it. He chose to become the sin bearer for us and to partake of death in our place to pay the full penalty of sin on our behalf.

You ask :

Why is it you do not find abhorrent the placing of a conceptus in the womb of Mary but do find abhorrent the placing of a sperm cell in the womb? Is there any real difference if normal sexual activity is not involved?
Mary was still a virgin and had had no sexual relations. God cannot be accused of sin according to any laws because of how He chooses to do his works surely?

It all comes down to a matter of the sin nature Nick. Are we born in sin or not? I believe the bible teaches that we are, therefore Mary was born in sin, in her, that is to say in her flesh, dwelt no good thing. If this is true of Paul after his conversion then it is even more so true of the mother of our Lord before hers.
Given this fact, if any part of Mary's flesh nature, (which is genetically inherited), was in Jesus he would be born in sin. Even if it was only half of his genetics, a little leaven leavens the whole lump…

[Author]

Posts