- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 10 2009,10:06) Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 10 2009,07:48) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 10 2009,07:20) Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 10 2009,04:11) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 07 2009,10:23) Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 06 2009,12:16) Quote (eveh @ Sep. 02 2009,15:19) Do you know who the Gentiles were in his bloodline?
It's interesting to note the science of conception. Where the “blood” is concerned in the womb, you may be interested to learn that the father's sperm holds the codes for building the blood.It is my belief that this is why Jesus is considered without sin. His “blood” is pure.
Of course this is just a theory of mine (one of many).
Love,
Mandy
Looks like scripture sees it from a different perspective;
Psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”“Mother,” not “Father.” Fathers beget, Mothers conceive.
Pal,This is of no consequence to my theory – study conception and you will see.
Thanks,
Mandy
Sure. You believe that not only “life is in the blood” but “sin is through the blood” as well.BAD theory.
I never said sin is through the blood.Mary was under the Law. The son born to her would be also. This still does not affect my theory.
Quote It's interesting to note the science of conception. Where the “blood” is concerned in the womb, you may be interested to learn that the father's sperm holds the codes for building the blood. It is my belief that this is why Jesus is considered without sin. His “blood” is pure.
Can you explain how this is NOT saying sin is in the blood?
As I have said, the male sperm carries the genetic code to build the blood supply in the unborn child. You may freely research this for yourself on the internet if you are truly interested.Because of this fact, obviously the “blood” portion of Jesus is pure as it was given from the male (father) contributing factor. Unless of course you want to give the process of conception a whole'nother definition. The miracle was that God provided what was needed (the sperm), the process of what happened next….conception….birth….was all so status quo.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 10 2009,10:39) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 10 2009,10:06) Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 10 2009,07:48) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 10 2009,07:20) Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 10 2009,04:11) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 07 2009,10:23) Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 06 2009,12:16) Quote (eveh @ Sep. 02 2009,15:19) Do you know who the Gentiles were in his bloodline?
It's interesting to note the science of conception. Where the “blood” is concerned in the womb, you may be interested to learn that the father's sperm holds the codes for building the blood.It is my belief that this is why Jesus is considered without sin. His “blood” is pure.
Of course this is just a theory of mine (one of many).
Love,
Mandy
Looks like scripture sees it from a different perspective;
Psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”“Mother,” not “Father.” Fathers beget, Mothers conceive.
Pal,This is of no consequence to my theory – study conception and you will see.
Thanks,
Mandy
Sure. You believe that not only “life is in the blood” but “sin is through the blood” as well.BAD theory.
I never said sin is through the blood.Mary was under the Law. The son born to her would be also. This still does not affect my theory.
Quote It's interesting to note the science of conception. Where the “blood” is concerned in the womb, you may be interested to learn that the father's sperm holds the codes for building the blood. It is my belief that this is why Jesus is considered without sin. His “blood” is pure.
Can you explain how this is NOT saying sin is in the blood?
As I have said, the male sperm carries the genetic code to build the blood supply in the unborn child. You may freely research this for yourself on the internet if you are truly interested.Because of this fact, obviously the “blood” portion of Jesus is pure as it was given from the male (father) contributing factor. Unless of course you want to give the process of conception a whole'nother definition. The miracle was that God provided what was needed (the sperm), the process of what happened next….conception….birth….was all so status quo.
There is actually no evidence whatsoever that there was any male sperm involved in the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb.All we know for sure, is that through MARY, Jesus was of the seed of David. And that which was conceived in her was gennao of the Spirit. [Mat 1:20] That which is gennao of the spirit is spirit [John 3:6] And Jesus was “made of a woman.” [Gal 4:4] To say God provided male sperm is to interject into scripture what scripture does not provide for itself.
As for the “status quo” of your concept of the conception, show us of ANY other man of whom scripture tells us was conceived of the spirit, and “made of a woman.” “Made” is not a reference to the “normal status quo” but to the special creation of the son of God. No other man was ever said to be “made of a woman.” [“made” = genomenon]
Hey Pal,
Quote There is actually no evidence whatsoever that there was any male sperm involved in the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb.
Is not the Father the source of everything? Why would he not provide a sperm for a human pregnacy? It's kind of a given, shouldn't it be? Otherwise, what type of pregnacy would it be? Could you even call it a pregnancy? Perhaps we don't have the definition or term for what you are proposing? But I suggest to you that God knew what he was doing when he used simple reproduction to bring his own son into he world. He wanted us to understand what he was doing. Who wouldn't understand conception and what it meant?Quote To say God provided male sperm is to interject into scripture what scripture does not provide for itself.
And I would say it would be to deny what conception of the human species actually means. Whereby you create your own understanding of what it *could* mean. Better to stay with what we know.Quote As for the “status quo” of your concept of the conception, show us of ANY other man of whom scripture tells us was conceived of the spirit, and “made of a woman.”
Hmmm. When Jesus was born, was he a little baby? That's pretty status quo, Pal. The angel even comforted Mary with the fact that her cousin, Elizabeth was pregnant as well. There didn't seem to be any differences made between her pregnancy and her cousins (as far as the physical goes, which is what we are discussing).Love,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 10 2009,13:09) Hey Pal, Quote There is actually no evidence whatsoever that there was any male sperm involved in the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb.
Is not the Father the source of everything? Why would he not provide a sperm for a human pregnacy? It's kind of a given, shouldn't it be? Otherwise, what type of pregnacy would it be? Could you even call it a pregnancy? Perhaps we don't have the definition or term for what you are proposing? But I suggest to you that God knew what he was doing when he used simple reproduction to bring his own son into he world. He wanted us to understand what he was doing. Who wouldn't understand conception and what it meant?Quote To say God provided male sperm is to interject into scripture what scripture does not provide for itself.
And I would say it would be to deny what conception of the human species actually means. Whereby you create your own understanding of what it *could* mean. Better to stay with what we know.Quote As for the “status quo” of your concept of the conception, show us of ANY other man of whom scripture tells us was conceived of the spirit, and “made of a woman.”
Hmmm. When Jesus was born, was he a little baby? That's pretty status quo, Pal. The angel even comforted Mary with the fact that her cousin, Elizabeth was pregnant as well. There didn't seem to be any differences made between her pregnancy and her cousins (as far as the physical goes, which is what we are discussing).Love,
Mandy
So you think Joseph really was the father?Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 10 2009,21:59) Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 10 2009,13:09) Hey Pal, Quote There is actually no evidence whatsoever that there was any male sperm involved in the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb.
Is not the Father the source of everything? Why would he not provide a sperm for a human pregnacy? It's kind of a given, shouldn't it be? Otherwise, what type of pregnacy would it be? Could you even call it a pregnancy? Perhaps we don't have the definition or term for what you are proposing? But I suggest to you that God knew what he was doing when he used simple reproduction to bring his own son into he world. He wanted us to understand what he was doing. Who wouldn't understand conception and what it meant?Quote To say God provided male sperm is to interject into scripture what scripture does not provide for itself.
And I would say it would be to deny what conception of the human species actually means. Whereby you create your own understanding of what it *could* mean. Better to stay with what we know.Quote As for the “status quo” of your concept of the conception, show us of ANY other man of whom scripture tells us was conceived of the spirit, and “made of a woman.”
Hmmm. When Jesus was born, was he a little baby? That's pretty status quo, Pal. The angel even comforted Mary with the fact that her cousin, Elizabeth was pregnant as well. There didn't seem to be any differences made between her pregnancy and her cousins (as far as the physical goes, which is what we are discussing).Love,
Mandy
So you think Joseph really was the father?
Not at all.Jesus is the literal son of God. It is my belief that the whole plan is hinged on this fact. But my beliefs and theories are not popular. I'll share them with you in more depth if you're interested. But I believe Jesus is a unique creature – one of a kind. And the reason we are acceptable to God is because Jesus is part like us, and part like God. It's why we do not belong from birth, but need to be adopted. Theories…..
Love,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 11 2009,04:53)
(Paladin)Quote
So you think Joseph really was the father?(Mandy) Not at all.
Jesus is the literal son of God. It is my belief that the whole plan is hinged on this fact. But my beliefs and theories are not popular. I'll share them with you in more depth if you're interested.
Be glad to discuss it with you, provided you will not get upset if I disagree with you. Not that I am planning to be disagreeable, just that the concept as expressed does not seem to fit my understanding.
(Mandy)
Quote But I believe Jesus is a unique creature – one of a kind. And the reason we are acceptable to God is because Jesus is part like us, and part like God. It's why we do not belong from birth, but need to be adopted. Theories…..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
