# Christ, the Son of God and Man



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

Not sure if this is the right forum, but I wanted to work through this paradigm with Reformed brethren.

If this has been covered somewhere else, just give me the link. 

I am going to go piece by piece to try and make sure I "stay within the bounds".

The first question in building my premise is this:

Was Jesus' body formed from the "flesh", that is the egg, of Mary or was He knit in Her womb wholly of new material formed by the God through the Spirit?

Your considered answer is appreciated.


----------



## Zenas (Jun 25, 2008)

Christ was born into the flesh, by a woman, under the Law. I see no other conclusion to make than Christ was the biological son of Mary.


----------



## dannyhyde (Jun 25, 2008)

From Daniel R. Hyde, God With Us: Knowing the Mystery of Who Jesus Is (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2007), 64–67:

*Of the Virgin Mary*
The phrase in the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed stating that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit “of the Virgin Mary” (ex Maria virgine/ek Marias tēs parthenou) is vitally important. This truth comes from Scripture in Matthew 1:20–21, in which Jesus is said to be “conceived in her” and born of her (Cf. Luke 2:7; Gal. 4:4 cf. Gen. 3:15).

The Reformers, while defending the gospel of salvation through faith alone against the Roman Catholic Church, also had to defend the truly catholic doctrine of the incarnation against the Anabaptists (ana, “again,” and baptizō, “baptize,” hence, “re-baptizers). These radical groups rejected infant baptism, along with many other doctrines, as Roman Catholic error. Regarding the doctrine of the incarnation, many Anabaptists held to the views of heretical groups in the ancient church, which rejected the true humanity of our Lord such as the Docetists (Christ appeared to be human), the Gnostics (spirit was good and flesh was evil), and the Modalists (God appears in various modes throughout history: as Father, as Son, and as Holy Spirit), whether ancient or modern. The Belgic Confession rejects the view of some Anabaptists that Christ did not receive His humanity from His mother Mary. To do so it calls upon an impressive string of biblical witnesses:

Therefore we confess (in opposition to the heresy of the Anabaptists, who deny that Christ assumed human flesh of his mother) that Christ is become a partaker of the flesh and blood of the children; that he is a fruit of the loins of David after the flesh; made of the seed of David according to the flesh; a fruit of the womb of the Virgin Mary; made of a woman; a branch of David; a shoot of the root of Jesse; sprung from the tribe of Judah; descended from the Jews according to the flesh; of the seed of Abraham, since he took on him the seed of Abraham, and became like unto his brethren in all things, sin excepted; so that in truth he is our Immanuel, that is to say, God with us (art. 18). 

The Anabaptists did not deny that Christ was born of Mary or that He was fully God. They did deny, however, that He received His human nature from His earthly mother, Mary. Some Anabaptists compared Mary to a funnel, saying that the Son merely passed through her as a conduit to get to earth; hence, he did not take on a human nature. Their reasoning sprang from a Gnostic error. Gnosticism was a teaching that threatened the Church in its first three centuries. Its basic premise was that “spirit” was good and “flesh” was evil. The material world was bad just because it was material.

The Belgic Confession agrees with Scripture in teaching that it is imperative for Jesus Christ to be a true man in order to save humanity from their sin. Since the curse of sin fell on humanity, the curse had to be reversed by a human. In its defense of the true humanity of Christ, the Belgic Confession uses the magnificent presentation of the reality and necessity of the incarnation found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hebrews chapters 1–2 proclaim the greatness of the Son over angels in both His exaltation and humiliation. The conclusion to this argument is in 2:10–18, which say,

For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

The writer speaks of this humiliation in terms of being “made a little lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:9). The text says the incarnation “became him,” that is, it was fitting, suitable, proper, or right (2:10) and that it “behooved” Christ, that is, it was necessary (2:17) for him “to be made like unto his brethren.” It was fitting for the Son to suffer for us as our Mediator and necessary for him to suffer as a man, with a body and soul.

Notice what Hebrews 2 says about the suitability and necessity of Christ’s true humanity being received from his mother Mary. In verse 11 the writer speaks of the link between Christ and us, literally saying that we are “all of one,” meaning, we have one origin. In verse 14 the writer says that since we as humans “partake of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.” Here the writer is saying that Christ shares a common humanity with us. Just as we received our humanity from our parents, so also Christ received His humanity from His only earthly parent, Mary. He did not just appear to be a human (as the ancient heresy of Docetism said); He was a human in the full sense of the term. The phrase “flesh and blood” connotes that He was a human being; He was a man. Hebrews also says Jesus shared with us in our humanity “in all things” (Heb. 2:17). He was as human as human can be.

One interesting question to ponder in our modern time, is that if Christ received His humanity from his mother, where did he get his Y chromosome? The Y chromosome, which the father contributes, produces a male baby. Was a part of the miracle of the incarnation that Jesus received the Y chromosome immediately by the power of God, or that Mary miraculously contributed this aspect of Jesus’ humanity contrary to ordinary means? Regardless, it is a miracle indeed.

*Cf. Stuart Olyott, Jesus Is God and Man: What the Bible Teaches About the Person of Christ (Evangelical Press, 2000), 89–91.*


----------



## christiana (Jun 25, 2008)

We cant know for sure but isnt it possible that the Holy Spirit implanted a fertilized embryo into Mary's womb, to be carried, nurtured, nourished until time for birth! Of course if this were true, He would have none of her features or genes. but we dont know that part either, do we?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

Thanks for the replies, thus far - a question:

Why *must* Christ's flesh be made of Mary's flesh to be considered truly Man or fully human?


----------



## christiana (Jun 25, 2008)

Well, I see that my previous post cannot be correct as Luke 1:36 says: And the angel answered and said unto her, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called 'the Son of God'.

Luke 1:31 said: and behold, thou shalt *conceive in thy womb*, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus

If conception took place in the womb that indicates Mary must have contributed the egg to be fertilized by the Holy Spirit.

I continue to learn!


----------



## christiana (Jun 25, 2008)

If only deity was involved then Christ would* only* be deity. However, He is both God and man due to Mary's contribution to His life!


----------



## sastark (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Thanks for the replies, thus far - a question:
> 
> Why *must* Christ's flesh be made of Mary's flesh to be considered truly Man or fully human?



Well, one reason that comes immediately to mind is: to fulfill prophecy. He was to be "the seed of the woman" and "a rod of Jesse", etc. How could a man, created ex nihilo by God and implanted in the woman, be called the seed of the woman or the son of David? I would argue that simply being birthed by Mary would not be sufficient to fulfill these prophecies.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

sastark said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the replies, thus far - a question:
> ...



Why? We know Joseph's line was used to substantiate Jesus' heritage and his flesh was not used.

Jesus was *born* in the conventional manner, even if His flesh was not conceived that way.


----------



## sastark (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > panta dokimazete said:
> ...




I don't follow.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

Joseph's line was used to show Jesus' fulfillment of prophecy:



> Mat 1:
> 
> 1The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham



and Christ was not literally the fleshly son of Joseph.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jun 25, 2008)

Danny Hyde (above) has provided the answer and answered the "whys".


----------



## Zenas (Jun 25, 2008)

Hmm. 

I'm not switching sides at all but ex nihilo creation does not subtract from the humaness of Christ. Adam was made in such a way and Adam was fully man. However, would Christ then have been born under the Law, having not actually descended from any human being under the curse?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

I understand that it has supplied *an* answer, but not from the angle I am approaching it.

Semper Reformanda


----------



## Zenas (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > panta dokimazete said:
> ...



Luke 1:31, quoted above, seems to rebut this reasoning. Christ was concieved in the womb, not merely born from it.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

hmm - not so sure - what does conceived actually mean? Did God create a "divine sperm" and fertilize Mary's egg?


----------



## Zenas (Jun 25, 2008)

Whose got a concordance and a good dictionary?  We would need to know the manner in which the words are used in Scripture in order to derive the intended meaning.


----------



## sastark (Jun 25, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Hmm.
> 
> I'm not switching sides at all but ex nihilo creation does not subtract from the humaness of Christ. Adam was made in such a way and Adam was fully man. However, would Christ then have been born under the Law, having not actually descended from any human being under the curse?



No, no. That wasn't my point at all (though I see how it could be taken that way). My point was that creation ex nihilo would make Christ not be the descendant of David. God, of course, is capable of creating a perfectly human man out of nothing.


----------



## Greg (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Thanks for the replies, thus far - a question:
> 
> Why *must* Christ's flesh be made of Mary's flesh to be considered truly Man or fully human?



I may be off the mark here so correct me if I am, but by being made of Mary's flesh He has direct lineage to Adam, though without sin since man's seed was not part of the conception process here if in fact natural generation via man's seed is how sin is passed on.

Tough without sin, would not Christ still have to trace his human lineage back to the first Adam in order to properly execute the mediatorial role of the second Adam? To share in the same exact humanity that those whom He saves has?


----------



## sastark (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> hmm - not so sure - what does conceived actually mean? Did God create a "divine sperm" and fertilize Mary's egg?



I don't have my Shedd's _Dogmatic Theology_ with me at the moment, but I seem to remember him addressing the issue of Christ's conception. What I can say is: We know He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary. What method God used to accomplish this may be unanswerable (divine sperm or some other means). 

I tend to think that God, through the Holy Spirit, did provide the necessary components which, when added to Mary's ovum, resulted in the conception of a male child - the Christ. Whether we want to call that a "divine sperm" or not, I don't know.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

Hm - I think "conceived by the Holy Ghost" could attribute the whole work of human flesh to Him, thus "born of the Virgin Mary"...


----------



## Zenas (Jun 25, 2008)

Let me ask you this, do you think there is something inherantly wrong or bad with him sharing part of His humanity with Mary?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

I think this paradigm could "of good and necessary consequence" help explain Christ's ability to confound the Pharisees.



> 41Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question:
> 
> 42"What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to Him, "The son of David."
> 
> ...



...food for thought...


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Let me ask you this, do you think there is something inherantly wrong or bad with him sharing part of His humanity with Mary?



I think scripture teaches that the curse of original sin is transmitted through the flesh of Adam. Christ could be fully human without having tainted flesh.



> Psalm 51:5
> Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,And in sin my mother conceived me.


----------



## sastark (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Hm - I think "conceived by the Holy Ghost" could attribute the whole work of human flesh to Him, thus "born of the Virgin Mary"...



I disagree. If the Christ's humanity is from God, then he is not the Son of Man, not the Son of Adam, not the Son of David.



> 45"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?"



What the Pharisees failed to understand is that David's Son (Christ) would also be the Son of God, therefore, David properly calls him "Lord". They (the Pharisees) did not understand Christ's two natures, and instead looked only for a human savior who would save them from the political oppression of the Romans.


----------



## sastark (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > Let me ask you this, do you think there is something inherantly wrong or bad with him sharing part of His humanity with Mary?
> ...



So, then, are you advocating traducianism? 

Personally, I am a creationist, but traducianism vs creationism does make for some great conversations!


----------



## Zenas (Jun 25, 2008)

sastark said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> > Hm - I think "conceived by the Holy Ghost" could attribute the whole work of human flesh to Him, thus "born of the Virgin Mary"...
> ...



I agree. If Christ were to be created ex nihilo by God as a man He would still be wholly man, but would be deficient in the capacity of serving as the Second Adam. 

If He were to be the Second Adam, he would impliedly have to descend from the first. In the ex nihilo hypothetical, Christ would not have descended from Adam in a way which would allow Him to come after, but would be created in like-manner so as to be offered as an _alternative_. 

I find there to be a distinction between an alternative and a subsequent. Christ, in being the Second Adam, would impliedly be a subsequent.


----------



## Zenas (Jun 25, 2008)

Wow. I never knew there was that kind of a distinction. 

I would definately advocate for creationism. 

I don't think he's agruing for that, though he may be. What I think he's trying to convey is that fallen nature is conveyed via the male because Adam was the Federal head and doomed the race to condemnation and rebellion. 

Christ, in having God as His physical father, did not inherit the curse from a fallen man. In this way He could still be born of Mary yet not have the curse transmitted to Him because it is done so through men and not women. 

*shrug*


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jun 25, 2008)

From a biologic standpoint, it would be interesting to know how God physically formed Jesus without the additional 23 chromosomes to match Mary's. He obviously used something else, otherwise Jesus would physically be identical to Mary (including female), which of course isn't the case. Did God simply create a unique set of genes to physically form Him, and if so how did God determine what those would be? Or did God use some set of "all-star" genes from the ancestors of Jesus, incorporating their best physical attributes ("best" in the sense of accomplishing Christ's mission) into His flesh. I voted yes to this question, because Christ was clearly 100% man (and 100% God), and was in the blood lineage of David and Adam. The mechanics of it all are interesting to consider...


----------



## Zenas (Jun 25, 2008)

I would vote against the "all star" theory. 

Something where I think people get so wrapped up in, and I don't mean you but generally, is the notion of Christ's perfection. People, mostly non-believers, seem to think that if Jesus was perfect, he was supposed to be physically perfect, i.e. handsome, strong, etc. This departs from what is meant by perfection, i.e. morally perfect.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > Let me ask you this, do you think there is something inherantly wrong or bad with him sharing part of His humanity with Mary?
> ...



If this were true, a "perfect" or "immaculate" female could be genetically engineered using the DNA from two females. 

Sin is passed from generation to generation by the procreation of two humans with sin nature. Christ had the physical, personality, emotional genes from Mary, but did not have her sin nature, being born of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

> I disagree. If the Christ's humanity is from God, then he is not the Son of Man, not the Son of Adam, not the Son of David.



Why not? Again -Joseph's lineage was used as a proof that Jesus was the Son of David and he was not of Joseph's flesh...


----------



## Zenas (Jun 25, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> > Zenas said:
> ...



Good point!


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> If this were true, a "perfect" or "immaculate" female could be genetically engineered using the DNA from two females.
> 
> Sin is passed from generation to generation by the procreation of two humans with sin nature. Christ had the physical, personality, emotional genes from Mary, but did not have her sin nature, being born of the Holy Spirit.



See, I think you are making my case - is the inherited sin nature divorced from the body? I don't think so. 

Body and soul are tainted by the curse, so any product from a human is tainted.

So, Christ, being fully conceived by the Holy Spirit, was fully human, but not tainted by the inherited curse.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

To my point - a clone, being the product of existing human material, would still be tainted - body and soul.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

sastark said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> > Zenas said:
> ...



I am a creationist. I think this paradigm fits.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > If this were true, a "perfect" or "immaculate" female could be genetically engineered using the DNA from two females.
> ...




Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that sin is "transmitted" through the male (ie, the sperm, or Y chromosome). I don't believe this is the case at all. If you are saying that sin is transmitted through humans in general and that Christ was freed from the taint of sin because He was not born of two humans, then yes, I agree with you.


----------



## sastark (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> > I disagree. If the Christ's humanity is from God, then he is not the Son of Man, not the Son of Adam, not the Son of David.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? Again -Joseph's lineage was used as a proof that Jesus was the Son of David and he was not of Joseph's flesh...



I don't believe the reason for giving Joseph's genealogy is to show that Jesus' was descended from David. That is established through Mary's genealogy.

I recommend reading Calvin's commentary on Matthew 1. You can find it here:

Calvin's Commentary on Matthew 1

I won't quote it, as it is rather long, but he directly addresses the issue of why Joseph's genealogy is given, when, in fact, he was not Jesus' father.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Hm - I think "conceived by the Holy Ghost" could attribute the whole work of human flesh to Him, thus "born of the Virgin Mary"...



I think things are going far astray. DannyHyde provided the confessional answer. Also, from the WCF chapter 8:

II. The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, *of her substance*. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. 

"Of her substance" is a pretty plain and straigtforward statement. The mechanics of conception are not important. Attributing all of Jesus' physical attributes to the Holy Spirit denies this important doctrine and, as Rev. Hyde pointed out, heads off into gnostic error.


----------



## Greg (Jun 25, 2008)

The assumption is seeming to be made that original sin is _not_ passed on by the male sperm _only_ but from the woman in conception as well. I'm not convinced that Scripture tells us this:

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous." -Romans 5:12-19

I believe the case to be stronger that original sin is passed on by the father through his sperm...thus both male and female inherit mankind's fallen condition.



> Why not? Again -Joseph's lineage was used as a proof that Jesus was the Son of David and he was not of Joseph's flesh...



In Matthew, yes. Though not by natural generation as Christ was under the federal headship of Joseph, hence his son. In Luke's genealogy I believe the case is made that this refers to Mary's lineage by the words "being the son of Joseph, _as was supposed_", and the fact that Joseph's father in Matthew is Jacob and in Luke we see the father being Heli. Assuming Scripture is not in contradiction here, between the two accounts we have Christ's lineage through both Joseph (as the federal head) and Mary. If I'm correct, then Mary is a physical descendant of David as well. So we see Christ to be the Son of David both through the headship of Joseph and the natural lineage of Mary.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > panta dokimazete said:
> ...



Mary's line was used in Luke. And he is the seed of Abraham.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

ok - so the consensus is that Jesus was formed from the flesh of Mary, but that flesh was not corrupted?

Which really states that the curse is not transmitted through the flesh of Man, just the flesh of men.

I have a hard time understanding that as scripturally supportable and problematic as it relates to the problem of cloning.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 25, 2008)

It seems the questioning is bordering on the heresy of Docetism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 25, 2008)

Jesus clothed himself with Mortality or he could not have died. Corruption doesn't always mean it is sinful. The flesh is born and prone to corruption in this fallen estate. Is the body necessarily evil or is it the soul of man that is? I think your question is misdirected. The flesh is corrupted because man's soul is dead and in sin. It is at emnity because it is born with a dead soul. The soul in a dead man only minds the cares of this world and the desires of the flesh.


----------



## Greg (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> To my point - a clone, being the product of existing human material, would still be tainted - body and soul.



Interesting point. Would a clone even have a soul?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It seems the questioning is bordering on the heresy of Docetism.



not my intent at all, nor the direction of the OP - Christ was fully Man, with a fully human body.

The presented paradigm is that his body was *conceived* by the Holy Spirit - _in toto_ - with no existing human's genetic material, but still *born* in the conventional manner, so as to have a legitimate human heritage.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> See, I think you are making my case - is the inherited sin nature divorced from the body? I don't think so.
> 
> Body and soul are tainted by the curse, so any product from a human is tainted.
> 
> So, Christ, being fully conceived by the Holy Spirit, was fully human, but not tainted by the inherited curse.



It is of course true that Christ did not inherit a sin nature. Rather than looking at how this might be so in light of his human (from Mary) flesh, it seems you have capitulated and concluded that Christ did not inherit human flesh via Mary/Adam. Per Danny Hyde's post, this is contra Reformed theology and the WCF.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> ok - so the consensus is that Jesus was formed from the flesh of Mary, but that flesh was not corrupted?
> 
> Which really states that the curse is not transmitted through the flesh of Man, just the flesh of men.
> 
> I have a hard time understanding that as scripturally supportable and problematic as it relates to the problem of cloning.



The question is focusing on the wrong issue. We are not sinners because we inherited some sort of taint, like an infection, from corrupt flesh of our mothers. It's because our ultimate father, Adam, as the federal head, corrupted himself and all of his offspring. That is what is so key about Mary conceiving from the Holy Spirit. Jesus was not under the federal headship of Adam. But his humanity derives from the physical workings of Mary's body, which itself was subject to the workings of the most Holy God.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> > To my point - a clone, being the product of existing human material, would still be tainted - body and soul.
> ...



Certainly - as the soul is imparted to human flesh by God and not the product of Man.


----------



## Greg (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> ok - so the consensus is that Jesus was formed from the flesh of Mary, but that flesh was not corrupted?
> 
> Which really states that the curse is not transmitted through the flesh of Man, just the flesh of men.
> 
> I have a hard time understanding that as scripturally supportable and problematic as it relates to the problem of cloning.



I still see a potential problem here, theologically speaking, if Jesus did not possess/share in the same human nature traceable back to Adam of those He came to save:



> ...by being made of Mary's flesh He has direct lineage to Adam, though without sin since man's seed was not part of the conception process here if in fact natural generation via man's seed is how sin is passed on.
> 
> Tough without sin, would not Christ still have to trace his human lineage back to the first Adam in order to properly execute the mediatorial role of the second Adam? To share in the same exact humanity that those whom He saves has?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> > ok - so the consensus is that Jesus was formed from the flesh of Mary, but that flesh was not corrupted?
> ...



so - the curse is only spiritual and not material?


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 25, 2008)

Regarding the clone issue: who is the federal head of a clone? Certainly not the Holy Spirit. Again, the sin isn't transmitted because of flesh. That is what the gnostics were thinking: flesh = bad; spirit = good. A clone, should there be one, would be corrupted because of imputed sin of Adam just like any other person.

But this particular opinion is mostly shoot from the hip. I haven't tried to figure out the creationist or traducianist implications of cloning.


----------



## Greg (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Greg said:
> 
> 
> > panta dokimazete said:
> ...



Is cloning the product of God or man?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 25, 2008)

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

(Gen 3:15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

(Gal 4:4) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;



Romans 1:3 (New American Standard Bible)

3concerning His Son, who was *born of* a descendant of David according to the flesh,


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > panta dokimazete said:
> ...



Sorry, I've got to run now. The short answer is both and total. The entire universe groans under the curse. But that doesn't mean the entire universe is to be blamed. (By that I mean that the entire universe is corrupted, but is not morally culpable and is not causing or transmitting sin.)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
> ...



Are you saying that being born is not according to the flesh? Or not in a natural way as that it was also according to the flesh? 

What is your point. Also notice the other texts I added to this post above.

Plus, let me just warn you here that you are bordering on trouble here.

edit... added these.

(Gen 3:15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

(Gal 4:4) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> ok - so the consensus is that Jesus was formed from the flesh of Mary, but that flesh was not corrupted?



Moderation

One thing that I want to make clear to all (and for those who may be reading and not posting). It's not merely a matter of consensus that Jesus was formed of Mary's substance. It's confessional. Keep the discussion within those bounds. 

I'm not against hashing out questions. Just remember our rules.

Mod off

I'm gone for a bit.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Are you saying that being born is not according to the flesh? Or not in a natural way as that it was also according to the flesh?



Nope - I am saying Jesus was born in the natural way, thus under Law, but supernaturally conceived as fully human flesh, thus free from the curse.



> What is your point. Also notice the other texts I added to this post above.



Galatians 4:4 (New American Standard Bible)

4But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, *born of* a woman, born under the Law, 

I think they substantiate the paradigm.



> Plus, let me just warn you here that you are bordering on trouble here.



thanks for the warning - I am going to pause for awhile, since the thread is heating up, but I want to state that nothing I am stating purposefully or willfully goes against Scripture or Confession.

I am well aware of the heresies associated with the wrong understanding of Jesus' humanity, which is why I am trying to vet the paradigm with my brethren, to insure my thoughts do not venture into that area.

I confess that Jesus is fully Man in His humanity and fully God in His divinity.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> I think this paradigm could "of good and necessary consequence" help explain Christ's ability to confound the Pharisees.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



what paradigm helps explain why Jesus could confound the Pharisees so easily? 

Jesus knew the word, and knew what would confuse an unbelieving mass of men. 

What paradigm is needed to understand that?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 25, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> > ok - so the consensus is that Jesus was formed from the flesh of Mary, but that flesh was not corrupted?
> ...



Final post - for my edification - please point out the sections in the confession so I can go back and review to direct my thinking. Thanks and sorry for starting a controversial thread.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 25, 2008)

"Seed OF the woman." Seed of _anything _implies production of "like kind" from the originator. After this, and the other arguments adduced to tie Christ to our race by incontrovertible facts, I can't see any reason for objections. Jesus was of Mary's BODY.

Christ was born "sin-free" not essentially because of his not having a father, though there certainly may be some argument to be made there. No, he was born without sin because he was conceived and born *according to promise*, and not according to nature. And he was this beyond anything found in the types and shadows. Isaac, miracle baby. Samson, miracle baby. Jesus--miracle of miracle babies. Born according to Promise and by the Spirit, Gal. 4:23, 29.

As for clones, if they could be born, are they born according to nature or Promise? Nature, of course, even if it is perverse. Nature is perverse in any case, so doubly perverse.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Nope - I am saying Jesus was born in the natural way, thus under Law, but supernaturally conceived as fully human flesh, thus free from the curse.
> 
> 
> Galatians 4:4 (New American Standard Bible)
> ...




So do you not think that Christ is Mary's seed, I mean as in coming from her flesh also? Do you believe that Mary is only an incubator? 

(Gen 3:15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

NASB...

(Gen 3:15) And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
*And between your seed and her seed;*
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel."


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> I am well aware of the heresies associated with the wrong understanding of Jesus' humanity, which is why I am *trying to vet the paradigm* with my brethren, to insure my thoughts do not venture into that area.



Your paradigm -- that Jesus did not inherit any of his humanity/flesh from Mary -- has been shown to be out of the bounds of Reformed theology and the Confessions. There's no more vetting to do.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 25, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> > I am well aware of the heresies associated with the wrong understanding of Jesus' humanity, which is why I am *trying to vet the paradigm* with my brethren, to insure my thoughts do not venture into that area.
> ...



And out of bounds to the scriptures to which the Confessions are built upon. Sounds like Paradigm is redefine.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > panta dokimazete said:
> ...




JD I posted a portion of Chapter 8 of the WCF above: 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/Christ-son-god-man-34521/#post427750

I think Bruce and DannyHyde have said it all.


----------

