Mary: real mother or surrogate mother?

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Luke 2:6-7 . . While they were there, the time came for her to have her
child, and she gave birth to her firstborn son.

The pronoun "her" is actually in the Greek text of Luke 2:6-7. It's not an
editorial insertion. It seems to me that if Jesus wasn't made from Mary's
own natural ovum then the grammar would be wrong because, then he
would be neither her child, nor her first child: he'd be somebody else's
child instead of Mary's.

Buen Camino
/

 

[aspen]

Perfect example of reductionism. Heresy hinging on a pronoun. It reminds me of Bill Clinton trying to explain away Monica by argruing over the specific meaning of the word 'is'. Over reliance on imperfect language (which already reduces truth to symbolism) is dangerous and misleading.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
It's been proposed that Jesus was a clone. But then you have to ask: A
clone of who? because a clone is a genetic copy of someone other than
the woman who donates her egg to the process.

Let's suppose God used Mary's egg. The next step in the cloning process
would be to remove the nucleus of Mary's egg and replace it with some DNA
taken from the person that's to be copied. Thus the person that the cloning
process produced could never be genetically traced back to Mary. At most,
she would only serve as a surrogate for the DNA donor. But the question
would still remain: a clone of who? From whom would God get the human
DNA needed for the cloning process?

Some have proposed that God simply created it. But God can't just arbitrarily
whip up a batch of generic DNA to dope Mary's egg with, because then the
thing she'd give birth to wouldn't be truly Adam's biological progeny, nor would
it be truly David's biological progeny either. It would be a bastardized hominid;
and nobody's biological progeny; not even Mary's. In other words: Christ's
biological genealogy would stop right then and there with himself; thus quite
readily disqualifying Jesus from inheriting David's throne. What I'm saying is:
the DNA had to come from David and from nowhere else-- and in point of fact,
the Bible says it did.

†. Rom 1:3 . . Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according
to the flesh

Buen Camino
/

 

[dragonfly]

That is a great verse - Rom 1:3 - especially set in the context you've given it.

There is just one other comment I would make:

thus quite readily disqualifying Jesus from inheriting David's throne.

Jesus didn't inherit David's throne through His mother, but by being Joseph's son by adoption.

 

[Foreigner]

The pronoun "her" is actually in the Greek text of Luke 2:6-7. It's not an
editorial insertion. It seems to me that if Jesus wasn't made from Mary's
own natural ovum then the grammar would be wrong because, then he
would be neither her child, nor her first child: he'd be somebody else's
child instead of Mary's.

-- I hope I am in earshot when you stand before God and try to defend your position by saying, "But Lord, the ancient Greek clearly implies..."

 

[Selene]

Jesus is not only called the "Son of God" but also the son of Mary (See Mark 6:3) so Mary is Jesus' mother.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
dragonfly, on 07 Feb 2013 - 13:19, said : Jesus didn't inherit David's
throne through His mother, but by being Joseph's son by adoption.

Throughout Israel's biblical history, things like patriarchies, high priesthoods,
and thrones have always passed down by blood, never by adoption. Had
Jesus not been David's biological progeny he wouldn't have been a valid
candidate for David's throne. It's always been that way and nobody can get
around it; not even God; nor would He want to; nor does He need to.

I too believe that Jesus inherited the legal right to take David's throne through
the adoption process; but it's only by his blood connection to David that he
qualifies for it; otherwise Jesus wouldn't be in the running; which is why the
genealogy in Luke is so crucial.

Unfortunately, there is no punctuation in ancient Greek, so whatever punctuation
is in Luke 3:23 has been placed in the translation arbitrarily by textual editors;
so that most English versions of that verse make it appear to be a second
genealogy for Joseph, but it's actually Heli's; whom I'm convinced was Jesus'
biological grandfather; viz: Mary's dad.

Buen Camino
/

 

[dragonfly]

Hi W_H,

The way adoption used to be done, the child inherited all the same rights as natural born heir. That is the point of mentioning adoption. There is, also, the fact that Joseph seems to be in some way related to Mary, and that he himself was also of the tribe of Judah.

Mary's legal status was entirely dependent on her husband's status, but you're right about 'David's seed' being entirely through Mary. It would not have mattered (in some respects) which daughter of David's line had borne Jesus, she would still have been royal, and He would still have been Messiah.