Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Jesus Christ's Biological Origin

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    974
    Blog Entries
    288

    Post Jesus Christ's Biological Origin

    -
    Q: How can you be so sure that Jesus Christ was produced by his mother's actual human egg?

    A: The science of Biology bears that out.

    Christ is stated to be born of David's seed-- not spiritual seed, rather, human seed.

    Acts 13:22-23 . . "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will". Of this man's seed hath God, according to His promise, raised unto Israel a savior, Jesus

    Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh

    The koiné Greek word for "seed" in those two passages is sperma (sper'-mah) which in males typically refers to their reproductive stuff and/or their genetic material.

    Bear in mind that we're talking about flesh here; not spirit; viz: an honest to gosh human being rather than a spirit being. (Or-- God forbid! --an avatar.)

    Now, according to the science of Biology, in order for Christ to be born of David's flesh, one of David's biological descendants had to produce him. So then, seeing as how Jesus was virgin-conceived, then his mother became the default progenitor. In that respect she had to 1) be biologically related to David, and 2) she had to be flesh.

    According to the science of Biology, women conceive children by means of reproductive substances produced by their flesh, i.e. ovum, a.k.a. eggs.

    (It's surprising the number of Christians I encounter who sincerely believe that Mary conceived an alternate species of human life totally unrelated to David's.)

    /

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,892
    Blog Entries
    68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Niyoe'es:ah View Post
    -
    Q: How can you be so sure that Jesus Christ was produced by his mother's actual human egg?....
    /
    We believe God.

    Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,673
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    This matter was resolved at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Anti-Catholics often fall into the trap of re-hashing or combining old heresies. The heretic Nestorius was emphasizing the humanity of Jesus at the expense of the divine. What is surprising is the number of Protestants with threads of Nestorianism in their thinking but won't admit it. This is most evident in trying to explain the title Mother of God.
    https://www.theopedia.com/council-of-ephesus


    Last edited by epostle; 08-12-2017 at 04:09 PM.
    car·i·ca·ture
    1. description of Church teaching which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect.
    it's standard anti-Catholic methodology.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    974
    Blog Entries
    288

    Post Re: Jesus Christ's Biological Origin

    -
    Q: If it's true that Christ was virgin-conceived; then how did he get into Joseph's genealogy as per the first chapter of Matthew?

    A: At Gen 48:5-7, Jacob adopted his own two biological grandsons Manasseh and Ephraim; thus installing them in positions equal in rank, honor, and power to his twelve original sons, which had the effect of adding additional children to Rachel's brood just as effectively as the children born of her maid Bilhah-- Dan, and Naphtali.

    Jacob's motive for adopting his son Joseph's two sons was in sympathy for his deceased wife being cut off during her child-bearing years, which subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own. Ephraim and Manasseh bring Rachel's total up to six: two of her own, two by her maid Bilhah, and two by Joseph's wife Asenath.

    Now, fast-forward to the New Testament where the angel of The Lord spoke to Joseph in a dream and ordered him to take part in naming Mary's out-of-wedlock baby.

    "She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus" (Matt 1:21)

    Joseph complied.

    "And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matt 1:25)

    So Christ went in the books as Joseph's son; because that's how it worked in those days when a man stood with a woman to name her child. In other words: Christ became Joseph's son by means of adoption, just as Ephraim and Manasseh became Jacob's sons by means of adoption.

    Jacob's precedent displeases die-hard Jews. They insist that for any man to even be considered a candidate for David's throne he first of all has to be Solomon's biological progeny. But God only insists that the man be David's (Luke 1:32, Acts 13:22-23); for that evidence we only need turn to Christ's genealogy in Luke; which traces Jesus' biological ancestry to David via his son Nathan.

    /

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,892
    Blog Entries
    68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Niyoe'es:ah View Post
    [font=verdana]-
    Q: If it's true that Christ was virgin-conceived; then how did he get into Joseph's genealogy as per the first chapter of Matthew?....
    He is Christ's foster father.

    Notice the language difference:

    13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

    14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

    15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

    16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

    St. Joseph did not "begat" Jesus. He is recognized as Mary's husband. Mary is she of whom was born, Jesus.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    974
    Blog Entries
    288

    Post Re: Jesus Christ's Biological Origin

    -
    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    He is Christ's foster father.

    Webster's defines "foster" as affording, receiving, or sharing nurture or parental care though not related by blood or legal ties. In other words: foster children have no rights to inheritance nor a legitimate place in their foster father's genealogy. Foster children are expendable.

    In contrast; Webster's defines "adopt" as to take voluntarily (a child of other parents) as one's own child. In other words: adopted children have rights to inheritance and a legitimate place in their adopted father's genealogy. Adopted children are permanent.

    Jesus' adoption was essential because even though he was born a biological candidate for David's throne, he was not born a legitimate candidate. The reason being that the throne passed down from Solomon rather than Nathan. Plus, the throne never passes down through women, only men. Mary provided Jesus' biological right to David's throne, but she could not provide him a legal right to it.

    John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer are often unaware of the strict biblical conditions that dictate ascendance to David's throne and so are easily led to believe that Joseph was Jesus' foster father instead of his adopted father.

    NOTE: Just in case there's a man looking in on this thinking about adopting his wife's children from a previous marriage; should the two of you later divorce; she can legally make you pay child support for another man's kids because when you adopt them, the law and the courts regard their status as your own biological progeny.

    /
    Last edited by Niyoe'es:ah; 08-13-2017 at 06:17 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    974
    Blog Entries
    288

    Post Re: Jesus Christ's Biological Origin

    -
    I was taught in catechism that seeing as how Jesus Christ's mother was a virgin when he was conceived, then he didn't have a human father. Well; that all depends on how we go about defining "father".

    According to the book of Genesis; God created Adam's flesh from the earth's dust. Not so Eve.

    She was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's side. Thus Eve's flesh wasn't the flesh of a second species of h.sapiens. Her flesh was biologically just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's except for gender. In other words: Eve was the flip side of the same biological coin. In point of fact, the Bible refers to Eve as Adam just as it refers to Adam as Adam. (Gen 5:22)

    From that point on; any human flesh biologically produced from Eve's flesh-- whether virgin conceived or naturally conceived --would be biologically just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's because the source of its mother's flesh was Adam's flesh.

    So then; unless somebody can prove-- conclusively and without ambiguity, air tight and iron clad-- that Jesus Christ's mother wasn't biologically related to either Adam or Eve; then we are forced to conclude that Adam was the first in Jesus Christ's long line of biological fathers.

    NOTE: It's commonly objected that women cannot provide the Y chromosome necessary for producing a male child. And that's right; they usually can't. However, seeing as how God constructed an entire woman from a sample of man flesh; then I do not see how it would be any more difficult for God to construct a dinky little Y chromosome from a sample of woman flesh. And seeing as how woman flesh is just as much Adam's flesh, then any Y chromosome that God might construct from woman flesh would actually be produced from Adam's flesh seeing as how Eve's flesh was produced from his.

    /

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,892
    Blog Entries
    68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Niyoe'es:ah View Post
    -[font=verdana]Webster's defines "foster" as affording, receiving, or sharing nurture or parental care though not related by blood or legal ties. In other words: foster children have no rights to inheritance nor a legitimate place in their foster father's genealogy. Foster children are expendable.....
    We don't go by Webster's. We live by every Word of God.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,892
    Blog Entries
    68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Niyoe'es:ah View Post
    [font=verdana]-
    I was taught in catechism that seeing as how Jesus Christ's mother was a virgin when he was conceived, then he didn't have a human father. Well; that all depends on how we go about defining "father".....
    No, the Catechism is correct. St. Joseph is Jesus' foster father. Jesus is the Son of God:

    Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    974
    Blog Entries
    288

    Post Re: Jesus Christ's Biological Origin

    -
    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
    Jesus Christ is a mysterious amalgam of human and divine.

    Matt 1:1 . .The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

    Luke 1:32 . . He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David

    I encounter Catholics online all the time professing to believe that Jesus Christ is fully Man and fully God; but in reality, they only believe he's fully God.

    /
    Last edited by Niyoe'es:ah; 08-13-2017 at 07:56 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •