-2

Before starting I must begin by saying that as a Southern Baptist I believe with all my heart that Jesus was and always will be fully man and fully God. And I also believe that his death and resurrection paid my sin debt in full. That Jesus was in fact the son of God and a third part of the triune God.

In my study of the Bible I have concluded that Jesus human body was not the normal physical body we inhabit as mankind. Upon first conceiving that thought it seemed Heretical to me, but further consideration of Scriptures seem to indicate that not only was it not heresy, but a distinct probability. As my study included more Scripture there seemed to be more evidence that Jesus was a distinctly formed human being in the same vein as was the first man.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation, unless otherwise noted.

I have drawn my conclusion from the following Scriptures:

Luke 1:35 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.

According to Strong holy thing in the original means.

ἅγιος hagios

hag'-ee-os

sacred (physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially consecrated): - (most) holy (one, thing), saint.

That was the Scripture which began my consternation when the thought that; according to what I have been led to believe, is that the Orthodox and Catholic along with some other Denominations; believe in Original sin. ( as I understand original sin it is that we are born already having sinned due to Adam and Eve's sin.) therefore if Jesus was conceived of the egg of Mary he would not be the sinless sacrifice needed to be the propitiation for our sins. And yet to believe that he was anything other than a true man, and a true God seemed to be heresy.

That thought troubled me for some time until I had occasion to reread the Creation account, and the thought that God created all things from nothing and man was not an original creation, but was formed from the dust of the ground, I then went back and reread Luke 1:35 several times untill the words Holy thing seemed to jump out at me.

I then realized that God could just as easily form a new human not using any of the already damaged, form that was physical mankind. The Angel did not say that holy person, but instead said that holy thing, and so it became apparent that God could have just as easily have put Jesus on the Earth without Mary just as he had the first man. Therefore God must have had some reason for sending the Christ through Mary.

That led me to consider another question which had concerned me for some time which was we being saved by the blood of Christ:

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

upon reading this Scripture it occurred to me that the blood which initially coursed through the veins of Christ, was the blood of Mary and therefore the life of that human body received was the life it was given by Mary. Also if that life was passed down to Jesus human body it was also passed down from the life that God breathed into the first man. The Bible only gives us one incident of God breathing life into one person.

I have for some time been vexed by:

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: *for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. *

All mankind has returned to dust with one exception that being the earthly body of Jesus, which is:

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

When Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, went to the tomb:

Luke 24:2through 5 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. 3 And they entered in,and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: 5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, *Why seek ye the living among the dead? *

It is to be noted that,and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. They went expecting to find only the dead body of Jesus, but the Angels said to them, *Why seek ye the living among the dead? * The importance is in that they were looking for a body and were told that they were seeking among the dead for something that was alive.

So since God has decreed that the man into whom he had breathed the breath of life must return to the dust from which he came, why was the body of Jesus exempted from God's decree. If Jesus earthly body was in fact a new creation; even though it were exactly the same as the body God formed for the first man, it would not be subject to that decree and could be inducted directly into Heaven.

That that resurrected body of Christ was in fact the same physical body he inhabited on Earth is the same physical body he resurrected in is based in the fact that not only was Thomas invited to feel the imperfections to that body during his crucifixion, but he also ate and drank as any other person.

The assertion that Jesus had to be a seed of Adam to be a human, eludes my comprehension. Precisely why; if God created the first man with all of our human characteristics, then is it so hard to believe that he could replicate that creation and thus break the chain of disobedience inherent in mankind? To do so would negate the concept of original sin, and begin with an unblemished sacrifice. It would be no harder for God to create a fetus and place it in Mary's womb than to create a fully grown human

Is my conclusion heresy, or does Scripture back up my conclusion, and are there any mainstream Denomination who accept this premise?

  • If "holy thing" in Luke 1:35 was intended to emphasize anything at all, it was not that Jesus' body is somehow superhuman, but that Jesus is all too human (i.e. not God at all) and thus he was called a "holy thing" to emphasize that he is a created thing just like we are, and that there was nothing of divinity in him at all until his baptism. Since in scripture he performs no miracles until then, unlike apocryphal works like the Protovangelion of Mary. – david brainerd Sep 17 '14 at 3:37
  • Even John 1:1-14 about the Word being God and becoming flesh doesn't say it become flesh in Mary's womb, leaving room for this to mean that it entered Jesus at his baptism. – david brainerd Sep 17 '14 at 3:38
  • "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." thou is singular. If it had to apply to all mankind, what about Enoch??? – david brainerd Sep 17 '14 at 3:50
  • It would be heresy because it would deny God's true incarnation. It would be heresy in a similar way, I think, as the denial of the reality of Christ's temptations. Part of the main issue with God's incarnation is that He shared the human predicament fully, and thus He had a regular human body (short of the miraculous) and was truly tempted. – theodoulos Sep 17 '14 at 4:45
  • @theodoulos, By the same token, to be truly tempted, would require not only a real human body, but also a human soul, and the human soul would have to be the one in control of the body, not God. Which is why I've settled on the idea that God entered Christ at the baptism but not as controlling the body. Otherwise, there's no way the temptations could be real, and Hebrews places a lot of emphasis on their reality as a qualification for Jesus becoming High Priest upon entering the heavenly tabernacle. Furthermore, its just pure nonsense for God to be an ignorant baby. – david brainerd Sep 17 '14 at 5:08
2

I'm not aware of any Christian denominations who hold such a belief, though there may be individuals or groups self-identifying as Christian who do.

The Roman Catholic Church, most Orthodox churches, and most Protestant churches, hold to the Nicene Creed as an authoritative statement of the core of their faith. The Creed states that Jesus was "incarnatus ... de Virgine Maria" (often translated "born of the Virgin Mary" but more literally translated "made flesh from the Virgin Mary"), which appears to have always been interpreted in the sense that Jesus was (in your words) "conceived of the egg of Mary". It is (as you briefly suggest) largely for this reason that Catholics understand Mary to have been conceived without original sin—or more accurately, redeemed by Christ Himself in the instant of her conception.

If Mary were not the source of the fleshly body of Jesus in this sense, it would be difficult to reasonably explain things like "Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son," or "And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (cf. Luke 1)

The stumbling-block you're having is "holy thing" in the King James translation of Luke 1:35. But that wording is only used in the King James and translations derived from it. I don't know enough New Testament Greek to explain ἅγιον ("holy") in that verse; it could be neuter nominative or accusative, or masculine accusative; and I would have thought it would agree with Υἱὸς ("Son [of God]"). If this continues to be a stumbling-block, I suggest posing the question on Biblical Hermeneutics.SE.

  • Thank you for your answer, however none of the Impediments you present would preclude a newly created fetus with all of the characteristics and qualities of the first man from being placed in the womb of Mary. Since God created a fully grown man, why would it not be just as feasible that he could replicate that creation in the form of a fetus? It is not 'holy Thing' that is a stumbling block, it was only the cause of my beginning to entertain the idea which in turn led me to research it further in Scriptures. – BYE Sep 17 '14 at 20:46
  • @Bye It would be feasible, certainly; but in that case, it's not clear in what sense Mary would be the mother of the child, or that the child would be "incarnatus"; that is, in what sense the child would "take flesh from" Mary - and it's certainly not obvious in what sense the angel could truthfully say "You will conceive". However, chat rather than comments is the appropriate place to discuss the theology involved. – Matt Gutting Sep 17 '14 at 20:51
  • continued; AS I stated in my question the life for that fetus would have been furnished by Mary, and she would in every way still be the mother of Jesus. My stumbling block is Original sin, and God's insistence on an unblemished sacrifice. I have not yet come to a final decision about original sin; (which will infuriate my Southern Baptist friends), but is where I am. This theory, and it is a theory, sidesteps that problem, and yet does in no way hamper any other common belief. – BYE Sep 17 '14 at 20:56
  • I'm not sure, in that case, that I understand the belief you hold; because I don't see your original question stating that "the life for that fetus would have been furnished by Mary." On the contrary, you suggest that "Jesus' earthly body was in fact a new creation", which to me means that it was not created from the egg of Mary. – Matt Gutting Sep 17 '14 at 21:04
  • The conception does not have to be any physical part of Mary. CONCEPTION, n. The act of conceiving; the first formation of the embryo or fetus of an animal. If that fetus were initially formed in her womb it would still be conception. – BYE Sep 17 '14 at 21:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.